 The next item of business this afternoon is a statement by John Swinney, updating us on issues relating to the Scottish child abuse inquiry. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on John Swinney. I would like to provide Parliament with an update on a number of points within my responsibilities in connection with the Scottish child abuse inquiry and other questions in relation to addressing the consequences of historical abuse. First, I would like to set those decisions in context. In 2004, the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, officially apologised to victims of child abuse in residential care homes. What Mr McConnell said then was a first and very important step on behalf of us all, but survivors made it clear that it was in and of itself insufficient to address the scale and the nature of the issue. In 2010, the Scottish Government invited the Scottish Human Rights Commission to work with survivors on a framework for justice and remedies for historic abuse of children in care. Based on that work and at the further request of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Centre for Excellence for Look After Children in Scotland, Celsus, established an interaction group to work with in-care survivors to make recommendations on how they could best be supported. In the two years since the interaction reported in 2014, the Government has taken unprecedented steps to begin to address the wrongs perpetrated by individuals and institutions who should have cared the most for some of our most vulnerable children. Those steps included establishing one of Scotland's most wide-ranging public inquiries into the abuse of children in care, establishing a national in-care survivors support fund, supporting an apology law and legislating to create a national confidential forum for in-care survivors. As Parliament knows, the previous chair of the inquiry and one of our panel members resigned from their posts in the summer, citing accusations of Government interference in the inquiry's work. I did not then and I do not now accept the complaint made. The Government established an independent inquiry, and I am determined that that is what should be delivered. In my discussions with survivors since those events, they have raised with me issues in connection with the replacement of a panel member, the remit of the inquiry and on redress for survivors. I want to update Parliament about all those issues today. On panel membership, I listened to a range of views from survivors when I met them in July and appointed Lady Smith, an experienced judge in the inner house of the Court of Session to lead the inquiry. Lady Smith joins Mr Glenn Houston, who continues in membership of the panel. There may be the need in time for further specialist knowledge to add to that of Lady Smith and Mr Houston, and the Inquiries Act 2005 permits Lady Smith to appoint assessors if need be. On that basis, I do not intend to appoint a replacement panel member. I am not required to consult Lady Smith on that issue, but I considered it appropriate to do so and she is content with my decision. The current remit of the Scottish child abuse inquiry was arrived at following extensive consultation and engagement with survivors and other interested parties. As a result of that, we broadened the definition of in-care settings within the remit to include, for example, foster care, and we also ensured that the inquiry was able to consider not only sexual abuse but also physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. A timescale for concluding the inquiry was set, reflecting the views expressed by some survivors, particularly older survivors, about it being sufficiently focused to produce meaningful recommendations within a reasonable timescale. Since the summer, some survivors have told me that they wanted to see the current remit extended to include abuse that took place in non-residential settings such as local parishes, day schools and youth organisations. Other survivors pointed out that, if read narrowly, the current remit might not allow the inquiry to pursue evidence of abuse when children were outside the care home, for example when they attended recreational activities or summer camps. Some other survivor groups told me that they were content with the remit of the inquiry and did not wish to see an extension that could prolong the timescale. It is clear that there is not unanimity on this issue across survivors, some are strongly in favour of no change and others are strongly in favour of extensive change. It has always been the Government's intention that the abuse of children and young people in care is to be taken into account wherever it occurred and I want to put that matter beyond doubt. As the Inquiries Act requires of me, I have consulted Lady Smith and I have amended the terms of reference to clarify that point. That is the only change that I intend to make to the remit of the inquiry. I have to ensure a remit that is deliverable within a reasonable timescale. I have concluded that there is a clear distinction between in-care settings and non-in-care settings. In-care settings are those where institutions and bodies had legal responsibility for the long-term care of children in the place of the parent with all the legal and moral obligations that status carries. That is different to the position in non-in-care settings such as day schools and youth groups, where others had a duty of care on a short-term basis but crucially were not replacing the role of parents. In too many cases, terrible crimes were committed in those settings too. Criminal behaviour should be referred to the police and I hope where the evidence exists that will be energetically pursued through the criminal courts. If we set a remit which would in practice take many more years to conclude, we are failing to respond to those survivors of in-care abuse who have taken us at our word, in government and in parliament, that we will learn from their experience and by addressing the systematic failures that existed ensure that it can never happen again. Yesterday, we introduced the Limitation to Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill in Parliament, the first bill of this parliamentary term. The bill will fulfil another recommendation from the Scottish Human Rights Commission's report, and we are grateful to survivors who have long campaigned for this change. The bill removes the three-year limitation period for cases of child abuse and will remove a barrier that has prevented survivors from accessing justice. The bill goes further than any other jurisdictions by including sexual, physical and emotional abuse, where other similar legislation has been limited to only sexual abuse or has only included emotional abuse that is connected to other forms of abuse. The bill also goes further by allowing cases that have been raised previously but were unsuccessful because of the limitation period to be re-litigated, regardless of whether they were determined by the court or settled between the parties without damages being paid, subject to appropriate safeguards where that would be incompatible with the convention rights of the defender. However, the removal of the limitation period will not assist survivors whose right to claim compensation has been extinguished through the law of prescription, which is relevant to abuse that took place before September 1964. That is because the significant legal issues and the human rights legislation made it impossible to establish a sustainable way forward. I regret that there is no legislative solution that can be found for pre-1964 survivors. I turn the next officer to redress. I have been giving this complex issue serious consideration. By redress in this context, I mean monetary payment to provide tangible recognition of the harm done as part of a wider package of reparations that the Government is already delivering. As part of that package or reparations, survivors of in-care abuse already have access to the new £13.5 million in-care survivor support fund. This innovative fund is highly tailored and personalised and focuses on helping individuals to achieve their own personal outcomes wherever those might be. I am confident that it is already making a difference to the lives of many survivors. I have examined very carefully the issues around the provision of redress. I am grateful to INCAS and to FBGA for making proposals as to how that might be pursued. I have looked into how some other countries have approached this in relation to past abuse in residential institutions. I am conscious of the connection with the limitation bill and the position of pre-1964 survivors. There is also the question of how it would be funded and the role of other organisations alongside Government. I am therefore committing to a formal process of consultation and engagement on this specific issue with survivors and other relevant parties to fully explore the issues and gather a wide range of views. Discussions have already begun about that engagement process and its timing. I will be in a position to provide details in the coming weeks and can assure Parliament that I will take this issue forward with the urgency that it deserves. I would like to close by thanking survivors for their continued input and engagement. I recognise the importance of building their trust and confidence while being honest with them about what I am able to deliver. This Government remains committed to addressing the issues identified in the SHRC action plan on justice for victims of historic abuse of children in care. We have made real progress in delivering its recommendations. The decisions that I have outlined today are another important step towards realising our collective goal of addressing the systemic failings that existed. They are part of our collective determination that children in care must be better supported and protected than ever before. Can I thank the minister for his statement? We will allow about 20 minutes for questions and if members who wish to ask a question would press their request to speak buttons now, that would be very helpful. Liz Smith, first. Thank you. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for a prior sight of his statement and also for the reassurances that he has provided to this Parliament and indeed to the wider public regarding his confidence in the chairmanship of Lady Smith in appointment which I think has been very well received. I wonder if I might ask two very specific questions of the cabinet secretary. Firstly, and most importantly from the angle of complete transparency and public confidence in the future of the inquiry, the cabinet secretary has given a very clear indication this afternoon and also at the education and skills committee that he is wholly satisfied that there has been no inappropriate intervention in the inquiry by the Scottish Government. May I ask the cabinet secretary if he now believes that that statement and its supporting evidence have been accepted by the survivors of the groups who were quite naturally very concerned when the previous chair and one other member of the panel accused the Scottish Government of interference in the inquiry's work. Secondly, in terms of the decision not to replace the third panel member about which the cabinet secretary has clearly consulted with Lady Smith, could the cabinet secretary advise of the possible circumstances in which Lady Smith and Mr Houston might require the additional specialist knowledge to be provided to the panel, as he mentions on page 2 of his statement? I thank Liz Smith for her question and echo very much the remarks that she has made about Lady Smith, who I think is an immensely strong chair of the inquiry, who in her own approach and her record I think personifies the fact that this will be an independent inquiry. In relation to the two specific questions that Liz Smith raised with me, Liz Smith will understand that I do not think that it is up to me to comment on behalf of survivors about their views about the actions of the Government, but I reiterate on the record my confidence that the steps that have been taken by the Government in the past have been entirely appropriate within our responsibilities in terms of the inquiry's act in relation to the work of the inquiry. However, I reiterate to my very clear determination that this should be an independent inquiry and that my appointment of Lady Smith was designed to give public confidence that that would be the case, and I believe that it should be the case. In relation to her second question on the appointment of any assessors, I think that the skills and perspective of Lady Smith and Glenn Houston are well understood by Parliament, but there may of course be issues that emerge that require more specialist interrogation and that will really be an issue for Lady Smith to determine. She has the power within the organisation of the inquiry to appoint assessors if she believes those skills required to be gathered and of course it will be an issue for Lady Smith to take forward to make sure that the inquiry is able to fully address the issues that are contained within the remit. Iain Gray I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. The cabinet secretary is right to describe this inquiry as a step to right the wrongs perpetrated against some of our most vulnerable children. He knows well my view that to do that it must command the confidence and support of most, if not all, survivors. That confidence has been tested by what they see as faltering steps and delay. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what assurance he can give us that the decision to continue with two panellists instead of three will not cause further delay or slow the work of the inquiry? Secondly, as the cabinet secretary acknowledged, many survivors have pursued a wider remit for the inquiry because they believe it unjust that most survivors of abuse will not be caught by the scope of the inquiry at all. The cabinet secretary has clarified the remit today, but will he confirm that he has not extended it, that he has not brought any survivors into his ambit who were not in his view already included? First of all, Mr Gray asked in relation to the implications of not appointing a third panel member. I am confident that that factor alone will not extend the timescale of the inquiry because the inquiry is essentially and has been doing on a consistent basis throughout the summer period undertaking the necessary contacts with members of the public to engage them in that inquiry. I do not see the possibility that not appointing a third member would contribute towards the extension of the timescale of the inquiry. On Mr Gray's final point, I confirm the point that he has made. I have clarified the remit of the inquiry to make it absolutely certain that, where abuse took place outside a residential care setting but involved a child that was in care, that abuse that took place in another setting can be taken into account by the inquiry. Where I was concerned about my dialogue with survivors was that a narrow reading of the remit might not have suggested that was the case, so I have clarified that to put it beyond doubt. However, I confirm the point that Mr Gray has made that I have addressed the issue of whether the inquiry should be broadened from its original scope, which was to be essentially focused on in-care settings, and I have decided not to do that. I appreciate that that will be a decision that will not please everybody, but my judgment has rested on the fact that, if I had done so, I would have inevitably lengthened the timescale of the inquiry and that would have been damaging to the interests of survivors who have pressed the Government to make early progress on that question. James Dornan, to be followed by Ross Thompson. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and can assure him that the Education and Skills Committee continues to have a great deal of interest in this issue and will play its part to support the inquiry. However, we will also seek to provide appropriate scrutiny as and where it can, particularly to ensure that survivors' interests are properly reflected. I was pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary intends to look more carefully at the issue of redress, and I would expect the committee to explore further that key issue. In the meantime, can he provide me more detail on what he found when he looked into how other countries have approached the issue of redress? I welcome Mr Dornan's comments and, of course, make it absolutely clear that, as I have done to the committee, I am willing to address any issues that the committee wishes to draw to my attention or to question me about in relation to the Government's involvement in the inquiry. There will, of course, be areas of the inquiry on which I cannot give evidence to the committee because I do not have the knowledge because of the independence of the inquiry, but I am sure that the committee will understand that point. In relation to the detail of redress schemes, redress schemes in other jurisdictions take a number of different forms, and some of them clearly require evidence and detail to be provided to substantiate the claim that has been made by individual survivors. Obviously, that information has been gathered by Government and looked at carefully and will be looked at as part of the interaction process that we take forward. I should point out to Mr Dornan, however, that today the Survivor Scotland fund is open and available to provide support to individuals within Scotland, and I would encourage individuals who believe that they would be eligible for support to pursue that option to make sure that they can obtain the support to which they may well be entitled at this time. Ross Thomson, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. Within his statement, the cabinet secretary draws a distinction between what is an in-care setting and a non-in-care setting, providing that defined legal position. Non-in-care examples of day schools and youth groups are given in seeking absolute clarity. Can the cabinet secretary provide any further examples of what would be considered non-in-care settings? I think that what I would be safer to do is to refer Mr Thomson to the original remit of the inquiry, which provides on the second page of the terms of reference a series of definitions that provide, I think, very sharp clarity about what is included within the scope of the inquiry. I hope that that is of assistance to him. When I looked at the issues raised with me by survivors, particularly about the issue to which I referred to my answer to Mr Gray, I was concerned that there was the potential for there to be some dubiety about abuse that might have taken place out with the boundaries of a residential care setting. The Government was very clear that we did not envisage that to be essentially an artificial boundary for the inquiry. I have taken the opportunity today to address that issue to put it beyond doubt and I hope that that is of help and clarity to individuals. I think that Mr Thomson will find the definitions that are attached to the terms of reference address the issue to which he has raised with me. Jackie Baillie to be followed by Claire Hockey. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will acknowledge that the in-care survivor support fund is completely different to compensation for the injustice that survivors have experienced. He will equally be aware that, given the length of the inquiry and that survivors having to wait years for justice through the courts, we could be talking a long time indeed. Survivors are getting older, some are dying. Let me ask the cabinet secretary, will he consider making interim payments, as they did in Ireland, so that survivors are not made to wait any longer? The first thing that I would say is that I completely accept the distinction that Jackie Baillie makes between the survivor Scotland fund and a redress scheme. My intention in pointing out the survivor Scotland scheme in my response to Mr Dornan was to make it clear that there is support available at this time that can assist people in addressing some of the difficulties that they may face as a consequence of the implications of their experience of abuse. However, a redress scheme addresses a different question and I am happy to confirm that point. One of the ways that we could have taken forward the question of redress would have been to essentially leave this for the inquiry to determine. Of course, I have not done that. I have established a separate process that will enable us to consider those issues and to try to make progress on those questions. I understand entirely the context that Jackie Baillie raises about the experiences and the length of time that this is taking for survivors to have the issue addressed. However, there are many complexities as I explore the issue, which are not easy to resolve. That is why we need to have a process of this type. I advised survivors of the likelihood that that was the approach that I would take when I saw them last week. I commit in Parliament today to engaging in that exercise to make sure that we advance the issues that I know Jackie Baillie has raised on a number of occasions to make sure that we make progress on that question. I am aware that the Scottish Government has consulted widely with survivors and survivor groups and I welcome the steps that have been taken so far. Could the cabinet secretary confirm that he will continue to listen throughout this process so that we ensure that we have the right arrangements and supports in place that we take full account of the impact of abuse on survivors? There has been extensive consultation work undertaken to design the survivor Scotland fund as just one example. Throughout the whole of the steps that have been taken, the interaction process over a number of years, there has been very wide and substantive dialogue with survivors about that point. I am very happy to confirm to Clare Hockey that the Government will continue to approach those questions on that basis. There are, of course, the obvious conclusions that sometimes we cannot do everything that survivors would like us to do. I have been very clear with Parliament about the things that I am unable to do today to address issues raised with survivors. That is not because the Government has not listened, it is quite simply because we have to make a judgment about what we consider to be the right steps to take and the steps that will deliver outcomes as swiftly and as effectively as we possibly can to address the wrongs that have been committed to individuals and to provide them with some means of coming to terms with the terrible experiences that they have had. John Finnie, to be followed by Tavish Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement and commend much of the work that has happened so far. Including yesterday, the announcement, cabinet secretary, of the introduction of the limitation ball. Can I ask in relation to that, in the comment about real litigation, if any assessment has been made of the numbers likely to come forward there? As others have said, perhaps the engagement is not completely with all the survivors and there may indeed be others who will be emboldened by the legislation and come forward still. Has there been any assessment at all, please? In the financial memorandum that is associated with the limitation bill, we estimate that the range could be between 400 and 4,000 survivors coming forward with a midpoint of 2,200 being most likely in terms of the cases that may emerge. I would be the first to say to Mr Finnie that this rather prejudges the scrutiny by the French Committee of the Financial Memorandum, which I know from my long experience is very thorough. We will really only know the answer to that question when we see it. The best estimates of government are the best. We will engage with Parliament in the scrutiny of those provisions to make sure that such steps can be taken as effectively as possible. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Can I again thank the cabinet secretary for his statement in advance? In the reference that he mentioned this afternoon, the second one is to consider the extent to which institutions and bodies with legal responsibility for the care of children failed in their duty to protect children. Would you have regard to the evidence that presumably does sit within government that would have come over the years and under different administrations from elected members, from other organisations, from other bodies who will all have given a view to the government of the day about things that they know that were going wrong at a particular time? Would you be prepared to look at that and consider whether it is appropriate to lay that evidence in front of the inquiry as well? I think that I have to set out the terms of reference in a clear fashion. I have taken steps today to just take that to a point where it cannot be doubted at all in relation to the exchange that I have made to the very paragraph that Mr Scott raises with me. Obviously, the inquiry will take the evidence that it takes. It will be for the inquiry to determine the relevant evidence that emerges, but what I can put on the record, which will not be in any way a surprise to Mr Scott, is that the Government will co-operate fully in any request for information that the inquiry makes of us. I know that the Lord Advocate has made it clear that, in giving that commitment from the Crown as well in relation to co-operating with the inquiry, that is the approach that we will take to make sure that the inquiry has access to all of the evidence that it wishes to have. Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by Clare Baker. I was glad to see the Scottish Government show how important that issue is by making the bill the first to be introduced to the Parliament in this session. I look forward to scrutinising it through the Justice Committee to make sure that we get that right. In the gallery today, we have Sandra Brown, OBE founder of the Moira Anderson Foundation. Just today, Sandra described the trauma of Moira's disappearance 60 years ago as a stain on the Coatbridge community. Can the cabinet secretary provide any reassurances to survivors that the bill will at least begin to address some of the horror and trauma that they have been through? First of all, let me pay tribute to the work of Sandra Brown of the Moira Anderson Foundation, who has made a very strong, distinguished contribution to this entire area of policy. Secondly, I say to Mr MacGregor that the significance of the limitation bill should not in any way be underestimated. That is an enormous departure from legal tradition within Scotland, and it has been undertaken to make sure that we can have the greatest level of scrutiny and interrogation of this part of our country's past. For the reasons that I set out in my statement and which ministers have gone through before, we cannot go back with the limitations bill further than September 1964, but I hope that the extensive change to those provisions to enable that to be the case is recognised as an indication of the determination of government. I am pretty sure of all of Parliament to make sure that we do all that we can to address the wrongs that were committed to individuals in our society. Claire Baker, to be followed by Jenny Gilruth. Thank you. I would also like to welcome the publication of the limitation bill. We all recognise the need to enable survivors to have access to justice as soon as possible. That is a very short bill, and the Government has previously introduced legislation and treated it as an emergency. Given the age of some of those survivors for them, that is an emergency. Can the cabinet secretary give an assurance that the bill will be treated with the highest priority and will be treated with a level of urgency in terms of how the Parliament deals with it? I can assure Claire Baker that the Government will co-operate entirely with the parliamentary timetable in terms of advancing the bill. There has obviously been a lot of preparatory work undertaken. A draft bill was published early in the year. The fruits of that consultation and dialogue have informed the bill, so, hopefully, we can, as a consequence of that—as I say, I am intruding on territory that is not mine to determine—where committees can take that perhaps into account in the timetables that are set. However, the Government will certainly do everything that we can to ensure that the timescale is as swift as possible to ensure that the legislation, which I know will be widely supported within Parliament, is able to reach the statute because quickly it is possible. Jenny Gilruth, to be followed by Gil Paterson. I welcome the clarification on the terms of reference. It is important that we continue to make it as clear as we can that the abuse of children in care will be taken into account regardless of where that abuse occurred. I appreciate the difficult balancing act that the cabinet secretary has in finding unanimity on the terms of reference and the timescale, but could he outline how he will support and continue to engage with those who were in favour of extensive change? There is obviously a willingness on the part of government to continue our dialogue with survivors. We have to ensure that we are open to that information and there are specific questions on which we take that discussion forward. It is equally important that the inquiry is able to proceed to address its terms of reference as expeditiously as possible, and I know that that is the focus that the inquiry has. I hope that the clarity that I have given today enables the inquiry to do exactly that. Our final question is from Gil Paterson. Many thanks, Presiding Officer. Given that the Scottish Human Rights Commission established interaction and said previously that the justice system has not and is not working for survivors, is the cabinet secretary confident that the bill introduced to Parliament will fix that and can he outline what discussions he has had with the Scottish human rights commission? I think that the limitation bill essentially is an enormous step, as I explained to Mr McGregor in my answer just a moment ago, by the Government to open up legal redress for individuals who have been the victims of childhood sexual abuse. The bill is a direct response to the quote that Mr Paterson shared with Parliament from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. We obviously have benefited enormously from the process that has been led by the Scottish human rights commission and by Celsus. We will continue that dialogue to make sure that we learn all that we need to learn about how we can address those issues properly and effectively on behalf of the survivors of abuse. I thank the cabinet secretary and all members for their contributions. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on innovation. We will just take a few minutes or seconds to change seats.