 Felly rydw i'r gwaith y flinwyr yn siarad, dechrau, yn gallu bod i fod ni'n fawr yn fawr i'r gallowed yng Nghymru. Felly rydw i'r gallowed sydd yn iawn i'r bobl yn ateb gyda'r hunain egwyr y byddai'r busnes. Felly rydw i'r busnes gyda'r debat yn dengau 6,7, 2, 9 yw yn gwyllfaeth Cymraeg yng nghymrede comingfhysigol. Mae'r debat yn irrwynt gydig i'r byddai'r gaw난ol ni'n i'r bynedd. I invite members wishing to participate to do so now or as soon as possible. I would also start by reiterating the note that was circulated to members about the subjudice issues that apply in relation to the issues that will be debated now. With that, I call Colin Smith to open the debate for around seven minutes, Mr Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I travelled in a black cab to Farnethau from Rhydry, where I lived at the time when I was a wee girl. I was taken in through the big-arch door and as soon as the door closed, that's when my nightmare began. Six weeks of hell, I've carried with me all of my life. That's the words of my constituent, Marian Reed, from Carlouc, sent to Farnethau residential school in summer 1965, when she was eight years old. One of hundreds, maybe even thousands of women, sent by the state to Farnethau as wee girls many of the same age as my own two daughters. They were thought to rest, to recuperate, but instead they were abused physically, mentally and in some cases sexually. Do those brave survivors are here today in the gallery? They can't speak in this chamber so, Presiding Officer, I want to share their story, a story that needs to be heard. I want to give a voice to those women's fight for justice. I want to help to ensure what happened to those wee girls at Farnethau is finally properly acknowledged. I'm grateful to the many MSPs from every party in this Parliament who have signed my motion showing their support to those brave survivors. For those unfamiliar with their story, it started when Farnethau House in Angus was gifted to Glasgow City Council, then Glasgow Corporation, in the 1960s, but the impact goes way beyond the date that closed its doors in June 1993. Farnethau House was to be used under the agreement to support disadvantaged girls, but rather than being supported, rather than being nurtured, those wee girls were subjected to a catalogue of unimaginable abuse that has stayed with them to this day. Fiona was sent to Farnethau when she was seven in 1970-71. She recalls, I remember that girls were being force-fed, and if they made them sick, they were then force-fed with their own vomit. Rosina was sent to Farnethau three times from the age of eight in 1968. She said, there was a wee lassie there, she had what we now call eczema. When I think of that wee lassie and the pain she used to go through, I just want to cry. They scrubbed her till she was bleeding, she would cry so they hit her for screaming. If you wet the bed, you've got a doing for that. And there were certain things you didn't get. I wasn't allowed a drink of milk. One time I was so desperate for a drink when it came to brushing my teeth, I rinsed my mouth out and tried to take a wee drink of water. I was seen doing it, I was hitting the back of the head, my teeth went into my top lip and it started to bleed. I was slapped for making a mess because I was bleeding into the sink. I was made to sit out in the hallway, not allowed to go to bed. I sat there petrified, you were a wee wane. Survivor Elaine sent to Farnethau in the 1970s recalls, we were forced to write postcards home that said, having a great time, Farnethau is fabulous. It was written on a blackboard for us to write out. Another survivor Helen said, I was crying, I wanted to go home, it was a nightmare. I was touched by an older woman in places I shouldn't have been. I tried to approach the head of Farnethau, I was told that children should be seen not heard. I wish I could share every story but hundreds of women have now spoken up. Yet despite so many testimonies, so many devastating stories, not one of the perpetrators of these horrific crimes has yet fully been brought to justice. I appreciate the complexities, the challenges and I welcome in recent days there has been some progress in bringing one case to court. I'm conscious that this is still a live police investigation but it has been for years and time is running out. Many of those who should have been jailed have died. Farnethau's first headmistress, Nellie Bremner, its longest serving headmistress, Margaret Fletcher, they ruled Farnethau with, as one survivor said, brutality and cruelty. Some of those perpetrators died years after their crimes were first reported to the police. They should have been brought to justice before now. I will do that. I'm very grateful to Colin Smyth for giving way. Does he agree with me that, as well as being denied natural justice through the courts of law, that the Farnethau survivors have fallen between the two stools of our approach to historic abuse and that the historic abuse inquiry didn't cover respite care was rather focused on residential schooling and, as such, they've been denied justice through that quarter as well. Colin Smyth, I can give you the time back. Thank you very much. I think that Alec Cole-Hamilton makes a very valid point. Time after time, after time, blocks have been put in the way of these women, whether it's for justice, whether it's for acknowledgement, whether it was to hear their story. My appeal to the procurator fiscal, to the Crown Office, is that the time we have left to leave no stone unturned until these women get justice before it is too late. Those women have had nothing but barrier put in the way when they should have had answers. Before they were sent to Farnethau, they all had medicals, but they were never told why they were sent. According to Glasgow City Council, no records of those girls' time at Farnethau now exist. I asked the council to meet me and the women to discuss why they refused. They said that it would not be appropriate to have such a meeting. The records are likely to have been destroyed, we are told. Despite the many acts, statutes, regulations and supervisory bodies, despite it being described by the council in Glasgow at the time as a residential school, it seems, for Nethau, escaped inspection. No one it seems properly established, a place they were sent and thousands of girls to, was safe to do so. What a litany of failure. Those women need answers. Why were they sent there? Why was this allowed to happen? If that needs an independent inquiry, then so be it. One final issue that I want to raise is one that I admit has never been raised with me by any of the women survivors. For them, this is about justice, it is about acknowledgement. However, it is a scandal that the Government's redress scheme appears to exclude Farnethau survivors. It is clear that their abuse took place during what has been described as short-term respite or holiday care. When they were sent to Farnethau, they were still in the care of their parents. Both criteria excluded them from the scheme. This was a residential school. Those women were sent there, not by their parents, but as a result of the intervention of the council. When they were there, they were in the care of the council. That, Presiding Officer, was state-sponsored abuse. Can I congratulate the member on gaining this debate? Can I also congratulate those people who joined us in the gallery, but also all of the survivors and those who have not survived this long for coming forward and making this point? However, would the member agree with me that, to treat victims of such heinous crimes differently from other victims simply because of the period of time that they were in that horrendous environment, is to stay both on this Parliament and on the Scottish Government? Colin Smyth. I thank the member for the intervention, and I think that Martin Boutfield makes a very valid point. The failure to explicitly include what happened in Farnethau and, for example, the redress scheme does send a signal that this horrific serial abuse was somehow less serious than other forms of abuse that took place under the so-called care of the state, and that the state was somehow less responsible. If it needs a change in the redress regulations to right that wrong, as the Petitions Committee has called for, this Parliament should make that change. I want to finish by paying tribute to the women who have come forward to share their story. We meet many people in their role as MSPs, but I doubt that I will ever meet a braver group of women than the Farnethau survivors. It is not for me to tell anyone that they must come forward when they have been a victim of abuse. I cannot imagine how difficult that must be, but all I can do is share what I have seen. Those women who have spoken out now know that they are not alone, and the love, the care that they have been able to share with fellow survivors has given them such immense strength. It is now our job to give them the answers, the justice and the acknowledgement that their bravery deserves. Thank you very much, Mr Smith. I encourage those members who are in the gallery not to participate. I can understand very well the temptation. I certainly understand your desire to have your voice heard, but we discourage participation in that. That includes applause. We now move to the open debate. I invite Rona Mackay to be followed by Jamie Greene for around four minutes, Ms Mackay. I welcome the debate that highlights the truly terrible experiences of women who were sent to Farnethau House residential school. I congratulate Colin Smith on securing the debate and on the work that he has undertaken to highlight the plight of these women and for his extremely moving speech. The women involved have demonstrated incredible courage in coming forward to put into the public domain the physical, emotional and sexual abuse that they suffered and to make such a powerful case for justice. It is vital that the women involved are listened to by everyone who can act to address the serious and legitimate issues that they raise. That is why this debate is important and why the petition that is currently being considered by the citizen participation and public petitions committee is also significant The suffering endured by these women happened over at least a 30-year period between the 60s and the 90s. Despite the fact that the suffering happened some years ago, it is vital that justice is delivered. Indeed, because the suffering happened many years ago makes it all the more critical that justice is delivered. That should involve any perpetrator being brought to justice and I note, as Colin Smith did, that an arrest has been made in connection with these issues. I also think that there should be recognition by our country of the suffering endured by these women. The Scottish child abuse inquiry has undertaken powerful and painful work to confront the truly awful suffering of so many children in the care of the state in the past. It strikes me that the suffering of the Farnetti survivors would benefit from being confronted with the rigor that has been demonstrated by the Scottish child abuse inquiry. I understand some of the women who have met the Scottish Government to set out their concerns and I welcome the constructive dialogue that has already taken place with the Scottish Government in a meeting between some of the women and the former Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, who was and is passionate in his determination to see justice for survivors of these terrible crimes. In a letter in February of this year to the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee, the former Deputy First Minister set out some actions that were taken by the Scottish Government to address many of the issues raised in Colin Smith's motion. In that letter, it was stated that the Scottish Government believed that the eligibility criteria of the redress scheme could include Farnetti survivors, but the Government gave the assurance that it would consider further whether that was the case. I believe that that indicates a willingness to be as helpful as possible to the affected women and I hope that the Minister may be able to give us an update on the view from the Government on that question in closing. I also know that survivors have had great difficulty in accessing records relating to the time that they spent in Farnetti. Having access to original documentary information would without doubt strengthen any application for redress and therefore take this opportunity to ask Glasgow City Council to intensify its work to identify if any information is still held by the city council as a successor to the Glasgow Corporation and Strathclyde regional council that may help any individual in their quest for justice. The physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children is a difficult subject for any society to confront, but that suffering is nothing compared to the suffering of those children and we have an obligation to air, confront and do all that we can to remedy the suffering. Important work has been undertaken within Scotland today to do that and I hope that this debate helps to ensure that work addresses the experiences of women who suffered at Farnetti House, because if Farnetti women deserve justice it is the least they deserve. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I pay a very warm tribute to Colin Smyth for his very moving speech and a very warm welcome to those in the gallery today. I know that this is not an easy thing to do to listen to hear members recount some of your stories so publicly but it's so important that we do so and we do so publicly so that the world can hear the wrongs that happened to you. There are very few things in this Parliament that unite us as a Parliament as politicians of various colours and views of the world, but the work that we've done over the last few years to address some of these wrongs of the past have been some of the most important pieces of work that we've done and certainly the most that I've ever been proud of to participate in as a member of this Parliament over the past seven years. I am going to talk very specifically in my comments about the redress scheme because it's an issue that was very close to my heart. I worked on this piece of legislation both as my party spokesperson for education at the time but also as the relevant committee that worked on it and I worked closely with Government ministers and members from all across the spectrum to work and get that scheme into as good a place as we could but clearly as we've heard today it's still not there and I'm going to talk a little bit about that. I don't want to rehash some of the horrific stories about what happened at Fernethy House. I don't think they need to be repeated from me but I do want to make the point that what was supposed to be a place of recovery and care and convalescence to so many young people turned into stories of harrowing abuse and suffering and sorrow and those are stories which I think live with people their entire lives the mental and physical effects of that. I simply cannot imagine I am hugely moved and touched to hear some of the horrific stories of what happened. We think this doesn't happen in this day and age and I hope that it doesn't but it happened far too often to far too many in years gone by and we owe those survivors and those campaigners and activists that we speak of and hear from so often in this Parliament a huge sense of gratitude for the courage it takes to come forward and to fight for justice in whichever way they can achieve it and that justice can be achieved in many ways through apologies through compensation through support and just simply an acknowledgement by their Parliament and by their Government that wrong has happened to them and that we are sorry for that. Of course I worked on the redress scheme and I was disappointed in some of the elements of it when it passed. It was clear from the outset that it was not going to be available to everyone or for everyone. It was clear there were shortcomings in that scheme. I'm also deeply disappointed, I would say angered, Presiding Officer, that so many organisations who were responsible for abuse during that period did not even participate in the scheme at all and shame on them for hiding from the truths of their own pasts. What I think we could do and I want to be positive in my closing comments because we don't have a lot of time is think what I want to hear from the Government today is a response to the very specific calls both from the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, from the survivors in the gallery, from members across the chamber, is how the redress scheme, given its limitations and its operations, can be used to offer some form of justice to those who were abused in short-term care. I understand that that wasn't the nature of the scheme when it was set up but it is a mechanism that is already established and tried and tested and I know it's improving that it has had teething problems but it is a tried and tested method that we can use already to offer some form of justice. We also need to offer an apology as well and that very public apology is one that we need to hear straight from the heart of Government itself. We need to tell those ladies in the gallery that we're not just sorry, we're going to do something. They've heard a lot of warm words from people over the years and they'll meet a lot of nice politicians so shake their hands and say how sorry we are. What they need to hear is action from the Government on how we will use what mechanisms are currently in place in this country to offer them some form of justice whether it's through the justice system, whether it's through apologies, whether it's through physical financial compensation, whether it's support mental or physical health, whatever we can do we have to say exactly what Colin Smyth said to those people. You are not alone. This Parliament is with you and it will support you and if we can say it the Government can say it and that's what I want to hear. Mr Greene and I call Michael Manner to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton around four minutes. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to those of other members who have spoken in tribute to the Farnethys survivors, those in the gallery and those who can't be with us today and indeed those who have been lost over the years. I've had the privilege as a local member representing the northeast of Scotland where the Farnethys house is located to meeting some of the survivors and speaking with them. Just as Jamie Greene said, I won't seek to relate the testimony again that I think Colin Smyth gave a very powerful account to, but I have to say the fortitude and tenacity of those women in terms of fighting for not just for themselves but for so many others is deeply moving. The stories are harrowing but they carry the stories with them after we have gone home tonight. I have raised the issue of the redress scheme with the former Deputy First Minister John Swinney in committee on 12 January and pressed him on the issue of eligibility, which is being raised by members. He said to me at that time that it was possible for Farnethys survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme. He went on to explain that there were some challenges and difficulties in relating to individual cases as they might be due to the privacy of those individuals. It is difficult under the way that the Government represented it to me to talk about how many of those women may have been successful, whether any of them indeed had been successful. The Government has to think about how they communicate to the Farnethys survivors appropriately that the scheme is open to them, that it can make use of it and that it can have that small portion of justice through that. I also, on my reflections on that, would say that the system that we have put in place has created a hierarchy of abuse and that that may be unavoidable in the Government's view and Parliament's view when it passed the legislation certainly prior to my time here, but there is no doubt that speaking to those women they feel their exclusion from that has created a different tier of justice for them, certainly so. I do share that concern. It was a concern that I had at the passing of those bills that we create a simplified process, but it does create hierarchy. Nonetheless, it was designed to offer direct access without complex legal assistance. The problem that we are now hearing is that many people going through the redress scheme are actually still going to have to speak to lawyers. Lawyers are taking fees and percentages of the compensation scheme, which is entirely against the grain of what the whole scheme is designed to do. Surely that is an area of concern that the Government should also address. Michael Marr, I can give you the time back. I appreciate the intervention and I would share those concerns. I think that there is the practical operation of the scheme and who has excluded and included, but there is also the genuine emotional harm that is done to people from that hierarchy that is being created. One form of abuse is lesser or different to another. I know that the Government has a very difficult challenge in balancing those issues in historical abuse and the responsibility of the state around it. I echo Colin Smyth's observations and my colleague Mark Whithfield on the idea of this time bar in terms of whether six weeks are a qualifying period. To quote one of the survivors, to a child, six weeks feels like a year, so the abuse that takes place over those weeks is no different in that regard. I think that that has a double meaning as well. It talks to the horror, the endurance of these young women who were there for what might be, to ask the short summer holidays, but for them felt like a large part of their life and it has lived with them as a result. I would close by echoing Rona Mackay's comments regarding Glasgow City Council and I would hope that we can send a very strong message from Parliament and from Government that they must engage fully and openly with the survivors and with everybody concerned. The MSPs who are pursuing the issue should have full disclosure and a full account of what happened to the best of their possibilities. I welcome the survivors to the gallery, many of whom I have come to know very well over the past months. For anethys, it is not in my constituency, and to my knowledge none of its survivors are my constituents. 18 months ago I was walking past the Parliament when I saw a small group of the survivors huddled under the parliamentary awning who brought me over to tell me their stories. Those stories hurt me to my heart. Those stories made me want to go to war for these women. I speak today on behalf of the hundreds of women who are the survivors of the horrendous abuse that took place there. The accounts of that abuse that they suffered as children at the hands of those who are ostensibly there to care for them are truly harrowing and utterly disgusting, but it is important that we hear some of those accounts. I am going to delineate more of them in my remarks. Those were children, as young as eight or nine, largely from deprived and often mainly protestant families. That is something that the women have pointed out, taken to a remote area with the promise of a summer holiday and respite for their parents. Right out of the trap, things were not as they should have been. The constant cruelty of those running the house turned what should have been a pleasant summer getaway into the worst ordeal imaginable. When it came time to write home to their parents, they were forced to copy text word for word from a blackboard with false accounts that suggested an idyllic and tranquil experience, while the reality was day after day of chores and brutality. If they dared to deviate from that blackboard text, they would be screamed at and their letter would be torn up in front of their face and sometimes even fed to them. That practice, the letter writing, shows a chilling depth of organisation and forethought that went into this abuse. For an athlete, it did not come to light at the time of the great revelations in this country about historic sexual child abuse, in part because these women initially did not understand the nature of their victimhood. They were only there for six weeks at the time. They were from different communities, and as such, they did not often have contact with other girls after they left. Another reason that took so long to understand the nature of their abuse is the belief that they may have been routinely drugged at bedtime. Some women have memories of being given a biscuit, a particular drink for a supper that some, I believe, contained as sedative. Yet some of the women still remember waking from an unnatural somber to find themselves in rooms filled with pipe smoke where they were being sexually assaulted by tweed clad men. This has the hallmarks of highly organised pedophilia on an industrial scale. Their stories are burned into me. They keep me awake at night. Their trauma has impacted every aspect of their lives and their relationships. What is worse is that women are now being forced to endure a failure of justice, much of which we have heard already this afternoon. Many of those who abuse them have now died without justice being served. They have fallen between the stools of our national efforts to confront historic abuse. They are outside the ambit of the historic abuse inquiry and its redress scheme because, as we have heard, abuse in respite care was never covered. They are not in this for compensation, though they certainly deserve that. They seek only recognition, belief and justice. Some of the survivors sit in the gallery today. They do so at a high price. For each time they recount the abuse they suffered, they are forced to relive it. I want to thank them for coming and to say to them today that we hear you, we believe you, we are on your side and we will stand with you in your fight for justice. You have dealt with this far too long alone. Well, you are not alone anymore. Presiding Officer, on the last Monday in June, Colin Smyth, myself and other members will take many of the survivors back to Fennethy. We will do so with trained mental health councillors and hopefully with the nation's media so that we can help them all along the road to national recognition, to justice and then perhaps finally to peace. I thank Colin Smyth for bringing this debate to the chamber when we once again tackle the horrendous topic of historical sex abuse. It is a topic that I did not expect when I came into this place to know as much about that I currently do. I started with a historical sex abuse case with constituents and I tried to take them on a journey to some sort of address. Here we are still talking about it. Some of the Fennethy survivors I already know very well and it is really great to see you here again in the chamber, but as Alex Cole-Hamilton has just said, every time we discuss these things it scratches at an open wound. It is fair to say that progress has been made in the time that I have been here. I remember the forensic medical bill coming through the Health and Sport Committee and Colin Smyth and Alex Cole-Hamilton were part of that. We heard in private from survivors of childhood abuse and we know the trauma that we felt listening to those stories. We are hearing them at second hand. How on earth do you deal with that first hand? The redress scheme has been talked about today and I pushed John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, to expand the redress scheme because it is very limited. Continuall, we heard that it was about parental responsibility in care homes and we had to have that parental responsibility as an element of the redress scheme. I kept going back to Mike Mickey's situation that was abused in school and I kept going back to the education bill that says, in locus parentis is part of that bill. In locus parentis means that parental responsibility is temporarily handed over to teachers. If you talk about six weeks of respite surely to goodness, that in locus parentis is absolutely cast iron and locked in there. It should not even be an argument that they have access to that. Although the redress scheme is progress, I think that it breaks UNCRC law because of the way in which it is limited. I think that that will be something that will be tackled somewhere along the line. The other thing I think about the redress scheme is that the CICA previously to the redress scheme was able to apply through a CICA redress scheme. Even if you got that, you were still able to take a civil case to court. What would happen is that if you won that civil case, any money that you were given through a CICA would be repaid. That has been taken away from the redress scheme. Although I think that we have made significant progress in this Parliament and tackling the abhorrent subject of historical sex abuse, I think that there is enough a long way to go. For me, abuse is abuse. No matter the setting, I think that we need to consider how legislation can be expanded to ensure that those who have suffered this horrendous crime are recognised so that they somehow can start down that road to recovery and healing. Once again, I commend the Fanaethau survivors for their resourcefulness in the way that they have campaigned. I assure them that, as others have done in this chamber, they are not alone and that they have the support of this place. I call Shona Robison to respond to the debate, cabinet secretary, for around about seven minutes. I thank Colin Smith for lodging this very important motion and to recognise and welcome the attendance by survivors of Fornethi in the gallery, and to recognise their bravery also. The abhorrent abuse that children suffered while resident in Fornethi House is shocking. We have heard some of the testimony through the voices of members here today. The survivors have shown incredible bravery in sharing their stories as they seek justice for the abuse that they endured as children and no child should ever have to go through what these women have. While I have not had the opportunity to personally meet with the Fornethi survivors group, I have arranged to do so on 7 June. Of course, the First Minister has confirmed that he will also meet with them in due course. I very much want to hear first hand about their experiences and offer my support. Since taking up post, I have been made aware and briefed about the range of issues that surround Fornethi House. You have my personal commitment that those matters will be explored further and acted upon. I want to set out the work that will be undertaken to ensure that matters relating to Fornethi House are, as I said, fully explored. Sadly, we know that for decades some children in residential care in Scotland were failed by those entrusted to look after them. That is why Scotland took the steps to face up to those failings of the past by establishing Scotland's redress scheme. The scheme is designed to be swifter and less adversarial than court action. Although nothing can ever make up for the suffering that survivors have endured, the scheme, as others have said, is making a real difference to many survivors as it goes some way to providing acknowledgement and recognition of the harm caused. At the heart of the scheme are survivors and the scheme is built on the principles of dignity, respect and compassion. Those principles are set out in the legislation and remain as relevant today as they did when the scheme was designed. It has helped a number of people with £25 million of payments being made directly to survivors or their families. Although the abuse of children in any setting or circumstance is wrong, it requires to be eligibility criteria for Scotland's redress scheme. The scheme is designed primarily for those vulnerable children who are in long-term care, while often isolated with limited or no contact with their families. The scheme requires that the care setting and the reason for the stay is taken into consideration when making an assessment on eligibility. I will let you in in a second. It is important to say, as others have said, that, for netti survivors, they are not automatically precluded from applying for redress, but, as Michael Marra said, that has not always been an easy process. The circumstances in which individuals came to be at for netti house, of course, vary and, so far, it has not been possible to determine eligibility for the group as a whole. However, in his letter to the citizen participation and public petitions committee dated 6 February, my predecessor committed to further testing the eligibility criteria as it exists and the guidance for the redress scheme in relation to for netti. I fully support that position. I want to put on record today my commitment to exploring this matter as quickly as possible and to keep members updated of progress. Very grateful, cabinet secretary. In light of what you just said, I just wanted to ask if the Government prepared to perhaps review the impact of the redress scheme against what the redress scheme was intended to do. We need to first and foremost focus on the matters in relation to for netti and to try to find a way to make progress. What that then leads to, I do not want to prejudge, but that is my focus at the moment. We recognise very much that accessing records and providing evidence of historical abuse is a challenge many survivors face when applying for redress. This has been an important issue for the survivors of for netti. It is important that the scheme is robust and credible to ensure that survivors, providers and others can have confidence in its processes and outcomes. Redress Scotland are independent decision makers and they take into account the individual facts and circumstances of each application when making their decision. There is funding provided of £2.4 million per annum, specifically to support applicants to help with record searches as well as practical and emotional support, and that support is available to all applicants. I understand that the limited records in respect of for netti is a particular challenge. My officials have commenced inquiries with Glasgow City Council to explore the limited records and to establish the circumstances in which children were placed in for netti house. I have directed my officials to instruct an independent person to support those inquiries and Glasgow City Council has confirmed that this individual will be permitted access to the relevant archives. While I cannot direct Glasgow City Council, I have written to the council leader to express my expectation that those inquiries will be supported by Glasgow City Council. I thank the cabinet secretary for what I think is a helpful piece of progress on that very specific issue. Is there a wider point with schemes like Redress or any other scheme that the Government sets up? We just have to put trust and faith in the survivors who do come forward that it is very traumatising for them. We are not talking about thousands of people applying for millions of pounds. In some cases, the eligibility bans are very small and even the compensation levels are relatively low, as we know in schemes like Redress. Can the people running the scheme simply just put faith and trust in what they are hearing? I hear what Jamie Greene is saying, and I have enormous sympathy for what he is saying. We are trying to be a very much solution focused here and trying to find a way forward. I will continue to look at what possible routes forward there are. I just want to touch on another matter. Note that the motion makes reference to a criminal investigation. Members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a live police investigation, but Police Scotland has committed to working with the Crown Office to keep the relevant parties updated on progress. That is important. I also recognise that the Parliament is very deep-interest in the matter. I will provide the citizen participation and public petitions committee with an update on all matters when they are concluded. I will let you in a second. I also want to note the comments made by Jamie Greene about some of the other potential ways of recognising the harm done and undertaking to consider those very carefully indeed. I will let you in briefly just before the question. I am very grateful for the cabinet secretary giving away. She has talked rightly about the process of criminal justice. There is a process under way finally, which I hope will start to shed light on what happened at Pranethu. One of the reasons that the survivors have been denied justice so long is that we still do not know fully the extent to which things happened there and what happened there for how long and by who. That is why I lend my voice to Colin Smyth's call for a public inquiry into this, because of the nature of state involvement in the referrals by social work by the Glasgow Corporation to Farnethy House and the complete absence of documentation around that. Would she support such an inquiry? I want to look at all routes to try to help the survivors to get the recognition, the justice that they are seeking. Of course, the importance of trying to find records is why I have helped to push forward some of the progress in relation to Glasgow City Council and then we will see what records can be accessed and found. The only point that I would make about a public inquiry and Alex Cole-Hamilton will know this is that it takes a long time to go through a public inquiry. Of course, there is no guarantee of at the end of that people getting the answers that they are looking for. However, I think that we should keep everything on the table in terms of options going forward. I want to conclude by again recognising the bravery of the women who have worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the issues surrounding Farnethy House in their quest for answers. I hope that the level of interest that Parliament has in this issue, together with my commitment to the work that I have outlined today, means that they perhaps leave this place with at least the confidence that the matters that they have raised are being taken very seriously indeed and will be addressed as far as it is humanly possible to do so.