 The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on advanced redress payments. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on John Swinney. Cabinet Secretary, 10 minutes please. Last October, I made a statement in Parliament committing to providing financial redress for victims and survivors of historic child abuse in care. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I made clear that we wholeheartedly accepted the need to provide acknowledgement and tangible recognition of the harm done to children who were abused in care in Scotland. We do so openly acknowledging that such recognition cannot in any way take away the pain that individuals have suffered. Since October, we have continued to hear harrowing evidence of the abuse of children in care settings across Scotland. We have listened to the testimonies given to the Scottish child abuse inquiry. Victims and survivors continue to tell us of their experiences of being failed by the establishments and people entrusted to look after them. We must continue to listen to that testimony and the Scottish Government will consider with great care the findings and recommendations that are made in due course by Lady Smith. Work has been progressing since my statement in October to design the statutory redress scheme. The Government remains committed to introducing a bill that can pass its final stages before the end of this parliamentary term in March 2021. I welcome the views and the encouragement of members of Parliament that we should do all that we can to accelerate this timetable. My officials are working at peace to establish a statutory scheme as quickly as we can. I am conscious however that there is a significant amount of detailed design required to ensure that we get this right. We will have a full pre-legislative consultation later this year to hear a wide range of views in this process. We must be confident that we get all of the details correct in such a scheme. Presiding Officer, we are all too aware that because of age or health, some survivors may not live long enough to apply to the statutory scheme. I am pleased today to confirm the launch of an advanced payment scheme for those who were abused as a child in care in Scotland and who have a terminal illness or are age 70 or over. The scheme is now open for applications and full details will be published online this afternoon. A telephone support line will open on Monday morning, dedicated to helping survivors who wish to request an application pack or to find out more about the scheme. We realise that the application process itself may be distressing for some survivors and we will sign post applicants to sources of support should that be required. The advanced payment scheme will be administered within the Scottish Government by specially trained case workers who will support applicants through the process in order that they access the acknowledgement that they rightly deserve. The advanced payment will be an equal payment to all applicants who meet the eligibility criteria. It will be made using the Scottish Government's common law powers. The payments will be discretionary and made on an excrecia basis. The payment level has been set at £10,000. The sum is broadly in line with interim payments made by redress schemes in other parts of the world. The costs of the advanced payment scheme are being met in whole by the Scottish Government and we intend that it remains open for applications until the statutory redress scheme is established. Given the time-sensitive nature of advanced payments, we have kept the application process as straightforward as possible. To be eligible, applicants must either have a terminal illness or be aged 70 or over and must have been abused in care in Scotland before December 2004. Whilst we are guided by the terms of reference that the Government has set for the Scottish child abuse inquiry, this is not the sole influence in relation to eligibility. Given the differing purposes of redress and the inquiry, we have looked to other sources if those provide a better fit or to add interpretation to the inquiry's terms of reference where that is needed. The systems that we now have in place to regulate different aspects of childcare and to safeguard children from systemic abuse are radically different today than the regimes of yesteryear. It was this Parliament that introduced fundamental regulatory change in this area, establishing disclosure Scotland, setting up the care inspectorate, requiring the registration of care staff across children's services and more. It is the prior historic failings that have led the Government to establish a scheme of redress. December 2004 marked the public apology made by the then First Minister Jack McConnell and endorsed by the Scottish Parliament as a whole. It also marked the broad midpoint of a period of rapid and significant change in child protection legislation and policy and practice in relation to children in care. We have defined that date of December 2004 as the date prior to which abuse would have to have taken place to demonstrate eligibility. For the purposes of advanced payments, residential pupils at boarding schools will not be eligible if their parents chose that place for their children's education. We know from criminal cases that abuse did take place at some boarding schools and the impacts will have been as horrendous as abuse elsewhere. The advanced payment scheme seeks to respond where institutions and bodies had responsibility for the long-term care of children in the place of the parent. Long-term healthcare eligibility will exclude establishments whose primary purpose was medical or surgical treatment. Patient stays in those hospitals, primarily general or local hospitals, will normally have been short to medium term and, importantly, it will have been possible for parental contact to be maintained, albeit constrained by visiting arrangements. Children who stayed in all other establishments, whether the function was primarily care and not treatment, and the stays were often long-term, indeed sometimes life-long, will be included. Survivors asked us to develop an application process that is as straightforward as possible for survivors who are making the scheme robust and credible. This is what we have designed and today are delivering. Applicants will not be required to submit evidence of having been abused, but will require documentary evidence that shows that they were in care. Terminal illness will need to be certified by a registered healthcare professional through a process that we believe is as sensitive as possible to the circumstances of the applicant. We know that some eligible applicants will not yet have the written documentation that they need to support their application. Our case workers will be on hand to help and advise applicants and to refer them to organisations that can help them to obtain a supporting document. Recognising the impact that applying for and receiving an advance payment may have on survivors will also make applicants aware of organisations that offer emotional and other types of support. There are no reliable estimates of how many survivors may be eligible for advance payments. We will prioritise applications from those who are terminally ill. We will keep our arrangements under review so that our processes and procedures adjust in the face of experience, reflecting feedback from applicants. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the interaction review group for continuing to work closely with us towards this launch today. Their input to the design of the advance payment scheme and the application materials has been invaluable. We will work in a sensitive way, taking into account the trauma that applicants will have experienced, and I want to express my gratitude to all those survivors and organisations who have given us their advice and suggestions. I also thank colleagues who have designed and delivered redress schemes in other parts of the United Kingdom and, indeed, across the world, and who are giving so generously off their time to help us to understand what lessons can be learned. Our next key step is to develop proposals for the statutory redress scheme. No decisions have yet been taken. In developing our proposals, we will take into consideration the views that were expressed in the survivor consultation last year. The responses that will come from the more detailed pre-legislation consultation later this year and our experience of delivering advance payments. The advance payment scheme is a significant milestone in our endeavours to do what we can to address the wrongs of the past. I hope that it will provide some degree of recognition and acknowledgement for survivors who have waited the longest for acknowledgement and redress and those who have a terminal illness. I can reassure other survivors of historical abuse and care that our commitment to design the statutory scheme with a strong survivor voice is unrelenting and I commit to updating Parliament on a regular basis on the progress that we are able to make. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues that are raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 10 minutes for questions. I can ask members who wish to ask a question. Press the request to speak, but it is now a call. I commend the Scottish Government very strongly for the manner in which it has undertaken what must be very challenging and sensitive work. I also put on record the Conservative Party's thanks not only to the Scottish Government but to all the people who have been involved in it. I strongly welcome the advance payment scheme. I think that it will be very helpful to allay some of the concerns of those that we heard from in the early stages. You mentioned the measures that are being undertaken to ensure that there are very specialist care case workers on hand to deal with those concerns. Should it prove necessary to expand that role and to increase the number, has the Scottish Government made provision for that? I thank Liz Smith for her generous remarks in relation to the announcements that I have made today. Those are very difficult issues and require the engagement of individuals who have suffered horrendously. I am very grateful to them for their input. They have helped us enormously in reaching the point that we have reached today. I am acutely aware of the fact that even the process of applying for this assistance will be traumatic for individuals involved, which is why we have taken care to train the individuals who will be providing the advice and support that will be available from Monday and to ensure that individuals are supported in the making of an application. Although arrangements around the process are being kept to the minimum level that we can, there will still be some challenges for individuals around the availability of documentation and other points of information. That support will be there and I will be regularly monitoring whether it is adequate to support the demands that are placed on it. I should also reiterate the point that, of course, there are other sources of support available principally through the future pathways activity and other interventions, which we will be signposting individuals if they are not already in touch with many of these organisations. Iain Grayfall, Ross Greer. Iain Grayfall, Presiding Officer and thanks also to the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. The cabinet secretary knows that we have encouraged him to act quickly in creating an advance payment scheme for survivors who are elderly or terminally ill. Of course, we also welcome the opening of such a scheme today, and it is welcome that the scheme is open as the announcement is made. We also welcome assurances that procedures are designed to be straightforward, sensitive and quick. However, as the cabinet secretary acknowledged, there are some contradictions between the remit of the scheme and the remit of the child abuse inquiry, so I can ask for some further clarity on a couple of points there. First, the inquiry works to a cut-off date of 2014, so could Mr Swinney explain why he could not have simply made the more consistent choice of 2014 for the scheme's cut-off rather than 10 years earlier? Secondly, with regard to the exclusion of those abused in boarding schools, can he clarify if this is the same or different to the reach of the inquiry and if it is different why so? On the first point, I am grateful to Mr Gray for his remarks, and I appreciate the willingness to support the approach that we are taking. It is important that we try to make progress across the political spectrum on the issue. In relation to the cut-off date, we selected 2004 because of its significance in relation to the statement that was made by the then First Minister, Mr McConnell, at that time. The scheme is specifically targeted at older individuals and individuals with a terminal illness. We believe that that cut-off date is appropriate to ensure that all individuals that may fall into that category will be able to apply if the circumstances are relevant to them. Given that date, I have indicated that, in relation to the statutory redress scheme, no decisions have been taken on the points of eligibility. The issues that Mr Gray raised are of a different character and are more relevant to the statutory redress scheme upon which we will consult later this year. In relation to the point on boarding schools, the distinction that I am making here is where the decision was taken to place a young person in a boarding school was taken with parental engagement and involvement or where there was not parental engagement and involvement. The reason for that is that, for example, if a parental decision was not involved and a child was placed in a boarding school by an organisation expecting that boarding school to operate in local parenties, there would be a different nature of the relationship between the child and the institution than if a parental decision had been involved. The distinction that I am making here is to ensure that we are properly focusing the scheme on the cases that require and merit the intervention that is suggested by the details of the scheme that I am putting forward. Ten members wish to ask questions, so we can have short questions. Please, Ross Gray, followed by Tavish Scott. I would like to put on record the Greens' thanks to the Government and to the survivors organisations who have delivered that progress. Many of those who will be eligible for the advance payment scheme will not be online, will not be involved in survivors organisations and many of them will have never previously disclosed their abuse. How will the Scottish Government ensure that awareness of the scheme is as wide as possible to ensure that exactly those people know that they can apply? I am grateful to Mr Gray for his remarks and he raises a serious point in that respect. We are obviously using a variety of means to communicate. I have come to Parliament to make a statement to try to ensure that there is as much awareness and scrutiny raised from the significance of a parliamentary statement being made on this particular question. We will also be activating and have been working very closely with survivors groups to ensure that there is the widest possible awareness through those networks into the bargain. We will separately be promoting, through a wide variety of Government channels of communication, the awareness of the scheme. We will look to ensure that as many individuals as we possibly can identify are able to apply for the scheme. A question of the type in terms of being considered through a general marketing campaign is quite a challenging question because of the sensitivity of the nature of the issues involved, but I want to make sure that we maximise the reach of the scheme and the involvement of individuals. I do appreciate that this might be the first time that individuals will think to consider to take steps in this area. That is why we have put in place the briefing and support arrangements to try to make sure that, if individuals take that courageous decision, they are well supported by us in the process. The Government is doing the right thing here and I want to thank the Deputy First Minister for the statement that he has made to Parliament today and the steps that he has outlined to those whom we hope will benefit directly from the announcements. I wonder if the Deputy First Minister could give some indication of how long he expects the period to be by which an applicant or rather an application is first made and when a payment is expected. Secondly, will the Government seek to claw back money that is paid to victims from those who may be found to have been responsible, or will the Government simply pick up the entire tab? I am grateful to Mr Scott for his welcome of the announcements that he made today. On the first point, I would hope that we would be able to make payments within a month of an individual making an application. That is the timeline that we expect to operate to. We will monitor that very carefully to ensure that we are able to fulfil that. In relation to the second point, the Government is going to meet in full the costs of the scheme. I took that decision to ensure that we could act with urgency to address that. In my earlier statement in October, I made it clear that I thought that there was the necessity to consider, with other organisations that were running the institutions that were involved in the abuse, that there was a strong case for contributions to be made to the scheme. I intend to pursue those discussions as part of that preparation. Fulton MacGregor, by Maurice Corry. Thank you, Presiding Officer, as deputy convener on the adult survivors cross-party group in this Parliament. As a previous director of the Moira Anderson Foundation, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Deputy First Minister and welcome the statement and the commitment at the on-going commitment in this area. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how the Scottish Government has engaged with the responsible care providers and religious organisations following the publication of the review group's recommendations? Much of that dialogue will essentially await the formulation of the statutory redress scheme, where we will consider some of those points in the dialogue to follow up the points that I made to Mr Scott just a moment ago. I have been very focused and I have asked my officials to be focused on ensuring that we make the swiftest progress in getting this announcement in place. We had to await the passage of the budget bill to create the financial authority for us to be able to make such payments. That was secured for the Government just shortly before the Easter recess, and I have come here in the first week that we have returned after the Easter recess to ensure that this announcement could be made at the earliest opportunity. The issues that Mr McGregor raises are issues that we will pursue as we develop the statutory scheme. Maurice Corry will follow up. I, too, welcome today's announcement from the cabinet secretary. The statement says that applicants will be made aware of organisations offering emotional and other types of support. Considering the traumatic experiences of survivors, would the cabinet secretary commit to ensuring that support will not only be offered at the initial point of contact but that offers of support will go further? In case workers will check in with survivors at a later date to ensure that they have received the support that they need? There are a number of organisations that are operating under what I would call the umbrella of the future pathways approach, which have on-going relationships with survivors of childhood abuse. I am conscious from listening to the experiences of those individuals who provide that support at the need for sustained engagement and dialogue to support individuals. The point that Mr Corry makes is an important point, that that relationship is sustained, that individuals can have access to advice and support when they need it, because in this whole area of activity it is difficult to predict the moments at which individuals will once again require to receive that type of support. I give that assurance to be the case. Can the cabinet secretary outline how survivors coming forward who are elderly or suffering from ill health will be supported through the application process? We have recruited specific case workers who will be there and available to support individuals. One of the examples that I cited to Liz Smith earlier on is that there will be a modest amount of need for some documentary information, and that may not be easy for individuals to obtain. It is very important that individuals are properly supported. There are organisations that can help to provide that information, but that might not ordinarily be within the knowledge of individuals who require it. We will ensure that there is active and focused support for individuals to ensure that they are able, particularly where there is greater vulnerability, and that the scheme is aimed at individuals with greater vulnerability so that we can ensure that they are properly supported through the process. I note and welcome the acknowledgement in the cabinet secretary's statement that the application process may be a distressing one for some survivors and has already spoken about ensuring that people may be directed to sources of support. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree that the very fact of the discussion and the broader conversation around the process may encourage others finally to disclose abuse. I wonder how the cabinet secretary proposes to ensure that those groups who have a long and important record of supporting and campaigning for survivors of abuse, who may be outside the future pathways process, are given sufficient resources to meet the evident increase in need for their services. It is important that, when I made the point about the nature of the relationships of support that I put in place to individuals, it is important that we work with those organisations to sustain their activities. I am conscious of the point that Johann Lamont makes. What is impossible for us to predict here is what the reaction will be to the announcement that I have made in terms of the applications that will come forward and what that will trigger individuals. It may trigger more individuals going to the inquiry that has been established and I encourage anybody who has had this experience and wishes to raise their concerns with the inquiry to do exactly that. The strength of the inquiry is based on the testimony of individuals having the courage to offer that and I would encourage individuals to come forward to make applications to the scheme if they are eligible. We certainly want to make sure that we support organisations to provide the advice upon which survivors depend for their own sustenance and support at critical times. Can the cabinet secretary explain how the payments of advanced financial redress will be issued to survivors and whether that will have any impact on pension credits or means-tested benefits? My objective is to ensure that a payment received under the scheme has no effect on any other financial provision that an individual is receiving. We have had that assurance from the DWP, although it applies for one year only, and that is clearly set out in the information that is available to members of the public who apply. We are in advance discussion with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to ensure that that is discounted for tax purposes and I have no reason to believe that there will be an issue there. I did not want to delay the announcement while I waited on the completion of those discussions but my objective is to ensure that there is no effect or undermines any other financial support that is available to individuals. The payment arrangements will be discussed directly between the civil servants who are ministering in the scheme and the individual applicants for the payment of the sums of money involved. The cabinet secretary has made clear that the Scottish Government took considered advice from various parties before announcing the advance payment scheme, including advice from other countries. Is the cabinet secretary prepared to say which countries provided that helpful advice and how the total figure of £10,000 per head was arrived at? We looked at particular and received advice from the Republic of Ireland from some of the provinces of Australia and some of the provinces in Canada. The figure of £10,000 was fairly consistent but at the higher end of the comparative schemes that were available in other jurisdictions. On the interim payments in the Republic of Ireland, Western Australia, Queensland and Nova Scotia, the figure of £10,000 is higher than those figures. We have looked at a number of other jurisdictions that have taken forward such an approach and tried to set that at a level that we believed to be consistent and reasonable in that context. I accept that there is never a precise conclusion to be arrived at, but we have looked at the best judgment that we could across jurisdictions. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that there are additional resources in place to provide advanced financial redress to all applicants, should there be a greater number of applications than is expected? The Government has made provision in the budget for a total of £10 million to be available for the advance payment scheme for this current financial year. Obviously, that will be dependent entirely on the number of applications that come forward and we will continue to monitor that. If there is a requirement for us to put additional resources into the payments in accordance with the advance payment scheme during this financial year, I am committed to doing exactly that. The cabinet secretary said in his statement that, concerning the statutory scheme, there would be full pre-legislative consultation. Can he say anything about how he will encourage survivors to take part in that? We have benefited enormously over the course of the past few years from the participation of survivors in the interaction review process. I cannot express adequately my admiration for the individuals who have made that contribution because they have had to deal with the horror of their own experience, but they have deployed that for the benefit of others in our society. I cannot possibly express my admiration for those individuals adequately. We will continue in that spirit. Our policymaking has been enhanced by the dialogue with that group and I intend to make sure that the interaction review group is central to how we engage with survivors in the design of the statutory scheme.