Historic Institutional Child Abuse

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09525, in the name of Graeme Pearson, on justice for survivors of historic institutional child abuse. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges the continuing efforts of survivors of historic institutional child abuse, including those in South Scotland, to access justice; recognises that many survivors continue to suffer from the legacy of the abuse that they experienced; believes that, while some steps have been taken to address historic child abuse, much more needs to be done; notes the deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee in its consideration of Petition PE1351, Time for all to be heard, since it was lodged in August 2010; welcomes the publication by the Scottish Human Rights Commission of its Action Plan on Justice for Victims of Historic Abuse of Children in Care; notes that the main aims of the action plan are to achieve acknowledgement and accountability for historical institutional child abuse; further notes that a number of options exist for improving accountability, including a full public inquiry, the establishment of a survivors’ support fund and tackling the barrier of the time bar in allowing survivors access to justice, and notes calls for action to improve support for survivors of historic institutional child abuse and allow them access to justice.

Presiding Officer, I thank you for the opportunity to bring the debate to the chamber. I welcome back the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, who was absent last week due to illness; it is good to have her back in the chamber.

There can be no duty more important for civil society than to deliver on its responsibility for ensuring that children who are placed in the care of institutions—whether those are local authority, religious or charitable institutions—receive the love, care, support, protection and security that they deserve. It is a matter of record that society failed in that duty, and past evidence allows for no doubt in that regard.

In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights commented, in the case of E and Others v United Kingdom, that the remedies for survivors in Scotland were inadequate. I do not imagine that any comments from a review at present would be significantly different.

Institutional abuse of children is the ultimate example of failure in a duty of care and Government, as the agency that sets the standard, creates rules and laws and measures outcomes, has final responsibility for the matter.

My reason for initiating the debate is to give a voice to those survivors who have suffered, over years and sometimes decades, the most horrific abuse at the hands of people whose sworn duty it was to protect them. One survivor, who had for decades sought a meaningful apology and specialist counselling and support, contacted me about his case. His story was not only moving, but in the end devastating. On his behalf, I made contact with the organisation concerned to seek assistance. I was referred to a lawyer. In that moment, I experienced the coldness and alienation that is felt so strongly by so many survivors.

I do not know—and nor does the Government—the number of victims who have been affected by abuse at the hands of those who work in children’s care establishments. Some of them have committed suicide. The number quoted for Northern Ireland is 434; I imagine that Scotland will not have any fewer survivors, and it probably has more. Northern Ireland has initiated a public inquiry, which is designed to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial in its approach. It sets out not only to respond to the experience of victims—who are now survivors—but to ensure that such abuse does not occur again, and that services are in place to deal with the challenges.

In 2004, Jack McConnell—to his credit—gave a Government apology to victims on behalf of the Scottish people. That was a substantial step in beginning a process to deal with the many issues raised by survivors that should have been addressed before. Survivors wanted appropriate prosecutions where possible, and forthright apologies from the right people. They needed professional support and counselling, and in some cases appropriate damages. Lord McConnell’s apology, although welcomed by many survivors across Scotland and supported by the general public, did not deliver accountability in relation to individual institutions, nor did it provide an effective apology to survivors in respect of their individual cases.

Perhaps an apology law such as that which has been suggested by Margaret Mitchell might go some way to freeing up an opportunity for bodies finally to come forward and deal with the shortcomings in a more open fashion. At the same time, the minister should comment on current practice in relation to time bars that are applied in our civil courts in respect of on-going cases involving historic abuse.

To date, survivors do not feel that their needs have been addressed in a positive and practical fashion. It is estimated that £6.2 million has been spent on creating the national confidential forum and on funding various inquiries, reviews and debates that have come and gone. Survivors feel that little has changed in order to deal with the questions that they have consistently asked. The motion seeks to reflect that frustration.

Survivors want to see an effective response from the Government and the many agencies that are responsible for this shame. No survivor has asked me for compensation; all, however, want to receive a meaningful apology and, if appropriate, a prosecution. Most important, they seek psychological support and help in dealing with their private nightmares.

There is no doubt that this is a difficult issue. It is one that I personally find almost overwhelming. We have a responsibility to answer the demands of survivors clearly and simply. If there is to be no response akin to the public inquiry in Northern Ireland, will the minister explain why? Will the Government reconsider its decision now? Will the minister explain simply where the Government is today on meeting the demands of survivors? She knows that survivors have little trust in the provisions that are currently in place to deal with the issue. In the opinion of survivors, those provisions are convoluted, bureaucratic and bound to fail. They need a response.

I know that a number of members have participated in the debate and have long made efforts on the issue. I am fresh to the subject and make no claim to any special contribution. I merely ask the minister on behalf of those who have suffered abuse—some of whom are in the public gallery tonight—and who are still very much those children in our care: when do we play our part to help them to survive?

In the debate in December 2004, Kenny MacAskill said:

“There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2004; c 12438.]

Will we learn the lessons today, use our sight and our hearing and answer the cries from victims for support and an effective response? I look forward to hearing other members’ speeches.

I join other members in thanking Graeme Pearson for bringing a very serious and important issue to the chamber. Like many members, I have been contacted by constituents on the issue of historic institutional abuse. It is one that, as a former member of the Public Petitions Committee, I have followed closely.

It is important to recognise that a number of survivors are in the public gallery, which is testament to their on-going commitment and determination to securing justice.

All parties and the Scottish Government need to listen to what our constituents are saying, because the reality is that, since Jack McConnell’s statement and apology in the Parliament nearly a decade ago, progress towards justice for victims of historic abuse has stalled.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice said recently that the Scottish Government has spent £6.2 million on the survivor Scotland programme since 2007. I acknowledge the work that has been done to date, but the survivors to whom I have spoken feel strongly that that money has not had a direct impact on their lives.

We need to listen to those concerns. It is all very well for us to produce reports and frameworks, but if they are not being acted on and are not directly benefiting the people whom they were intended to benefit, the simple fact is that survivors of historic abuse are being failed. Survivors such as those who are here today deserve much better. That is why I join Graeme Pearson in urging the minister to outline the concrete steps that the Scottish Government will take to secure justice for victims.

As the motion highlights, the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s action plan outlines a number of options for achieving proper acknowledgement and accountability. Many of the survivors to whom I have spoken feel that the issue of acknowledgement was addressed by Jack McConnell’s apology in 2004, although I recognise that some members feel that more can be done in that area. Many of the survivors to whom I have spoken regard accountability as the priority now.

There are a number of issues and questions that my constituents have specifically asked me to raise today. Will the Scottish Government take real action to remove the time bar as a barrier to civil justice for victims of historic abuse? Will it work with others to create a national survivor reparation fund? Finally, does it support the establishment of a public inquiry? My constituents are asking that last question because such an inquiry has not been established, even though the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, supported it back in 2004. I also understand that, in 2003, the current Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Roseanna Cunningham, said:

“We need a major inquiry in Scotland into this issue”.

The survivors to whom I have spoken point to the inquiry in Northern Ireland, which provides not only a confidential forum but a legal avenue that victims can pursue. I know that many survivors strongly believe that such a legal route should be available in Scotland. In fact, a survivor recently told me that only 46 of the more than 430 applicants in Northern Ireland have chosen to go down the confidential forum route, which demonstrates the support for pursuing justice by legal means in a judge-led inquiry.

My constituents believe that Scotland is lagging way behind other countries on this issue. We need to learn lessons but also reveal the truth. The historic abuse systemic review, whose report was published in 2007, highlighted a number of legal issues that still need to be investigated. The review learned that senior people had ordered records to be destroyed; that alone is scandalous and requires further investigation. It also said:

“Many children died while living in children’s residential establishments. Some organisations have identified the children in graveyards. But in other cases searches have yielded few records identifying children or information about why they died.”

That point reinforces the need for more comprehensive action than the Scottish Government is currently offering.

Survivors want real action, and I urge the minister to listen not just to me but to the voices of survivors in my constituency and in the public gallery. If the minister progresses the actions that are being called for, she will have my full support. The survivors deserve justice.

I will allow a brief intervention.

I do not wish to curtail the debate. Due to the number of members who still wish to speak, I am therefore minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Graeme Pearson.]

Motion agreed to.

I congratulate Graeme Pearson on securing the debate and once again pay tribute to the commitment, dedication and tenacity of survivors of institutional child abuse who have fought tooth and nail to have the issue raised and then kept on Parliament’s agenda.

Time after time, we in Parliament commend ourselves on being at the forefront of issues and on leading the way on challenging subjects. When we do so, we are right to highlight why having a Scottish Parliament benefits the lives of Scotland’s people. However, here we are again, 12 years on from the lodging of petition PE535, still asking why a satisfactory conclusion to past institutional child abuse has not been reached.

As the convener of the Public Petitions Committee in 2004, I was proud to play a part in securing an apology from the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, on behalf of the people of Scotland, for the abuse that affected far too many children who had been in the care of the state. I felt that it was a positive step that, following that apology, a commission was established to look into historic abuse, and I recognise that many think that that review has had a positive impact on residential care in Scotland since then. However, as Neil Bibby highlighted, the review identified a number of issues that have not been progressed in the intervening period. So, we are no longer leading on the matter, but are watching country after country confronting its past failings and putting in place measures that do not just acknowledge the damage of the past, but seek to address the consequences of that shameful legacy.

Since my involvement with PE535, I have met many survivors of in-care child abuse. As well as admiring their strength and courage, I have been impressed by their desire for justice and not retribution. However, their sense of abandonment is what has struck me most. Yes—there is anger, hurt and pain, and lives have been devastated, and even those who have led successful lives after leaving childcare institutions have conveyed to me an impression of misery that has been caused by the struggle to cope with what happened to them in their early lives. However, they have used those emotions not in a negative way but in a fair and reasonable manner, to pursue support, help and advice—not just for themselves, but for others who they know have suffered but cannot find the strength to fight.

I therefore earnestly implore the minister to do something tonight. I know that she has spoken to the victims and heard their pleas, but what they need the minister to do now is to stop listening to her civil servants and to tell them to get on with putting in place the same remedies for Scottish abuse survivors as those that have been established around the world. Give them a public inquiry so that they, too, can obtain justice like people in Ireland, Australia and elsewhere. Let us get back to where we were in 2004 and lead the way in confronting what happened to those people who were, when they should have been cared for by the state, let down by our administrations and institutions.

Let us stop hiding behind bureaucracy and let us once and for all answer the call of the abused. They want justice.

As other members have mentioned, at the end of this year it will have been 10 years since the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, apologised on behalf of the people of Scotland to victims of child abuse in Scottish residential care homes.

Yet, as we have heard, despite the reports that have been commissioned by the Scottish Government and the forums that have been set up, survivors are still denied access to justice for the appalling abuses of their human rights—abuses that frequently have affected the rest of their lives.

Those most vulnerable of children, whose families were unable to care for them, who did not have mums or dads who were able to look out for them and towards whom the state should have displayed the greatest possible care, were abandoned to predatory adults who were often in a position of authority over them and, in some cases, abandoned to abuse by other children.

We know that it was not just the odd aberrant institution; it happened in residential accommodation across the country over decades, and probably over centuries. Tom Shaw’s report, which was published in 2007, estimated that around 1,000 children were abused in the Scottish care system between 1950 and 1995. Over the decades while that was going on, society looked the other way. There has been interest in the perpetrators, especially in those who are celebrities, but the experiences and the needs of the victims have received less attention.

I have had some contact with the survivors of the Merkland children’s home in Dumfries and Galloway, to which Alex Fergusson referred. Merkland was a residential children’s home in Moffat, which was opened in the 1960s by Dumfries County Council and was later operated by Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council.

When Peter Harley became officer in charge in 1977, he developed the home to accommodate what were described as “more difficult” young people coming through the children’s hearings system. I suspect that that was deliberate, as they were the ones who were least likely to be believed. He subjected the children in his care to a regime of physical and sexual assault. About 200 children came through Merkland during the five years when he was in charge. Forty-seven victims have come forward, but there is no way of knowing the total number of children who were actually abused by this individual.

Harley’s crimes were not revealed until 1994, when one of his victims was being taken to court. He advised his social worker that his offending behaviour was a direct result of the abuse that he had suffered at Merkland. In the meantime, another victim had killed himself and another had drunk himself to death.

In 1996, Harley was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. He received a further sentence of eight years for further offences that were revealed later, but he was released from prison after only 10 years. As Alex Fergusson said, five victims tried to sue the local authority, but their cases were of course dismissed by the Court of Session in 2005 as being time barred. That is something that we need to address. In 2009, however, Dumfries and Galloway Council took the decision to publicly apologise and to make individual ex gratia payments of £20,000 to each of the adult survivors. I believe that the council must be congratulated for that. It was not forced to do that; it chose to take responsibility. Many other authorities have refused to do so, however.

We know that various reports have been commissioned and that the national confidential forum is being established, but are we really any closer, after 10 years, to ensuring that responsibility is taken for what happened to those hundreds—possibly thousands—of child victims, who were let down by those who were supposed to be looking after them?

I believe that a public inquiry, possibly along the lines of Northern Ireland’s historical institutional abuse inquiry, which, as Graeme Pearson mentioned, is inquisitorial rather than adversarial, might address some of the concerns that other members have expressed on behalf of victims. Such an inquiry could identify the systemic failings by institutions or the state in their duties of care towards these children, and it could determine what support—apology, compensation or therapeutic interventions—would benefit survivors and meet their needs. Having been at the front, Scotland is now lagging behind other countries in taking responsibility.

Abuse is still happening. Only in November last year, a care worker was sentenced to six years for sexual offences against three young girls in West Dunbartonshire. Another important thing that a public inquiry could do is help to identify the additional measures that need to be taken to prevent future incidents.

It strikes me that we need to understand the process of the abuse of power. That is what all this came down to—the abuse of power by people who were in positions of authority over those who were vulnerable. Unless we address that, we will never put things right for victims.

Yes, indeed.

Will the member give way?

Briefly, please.

I would be grateful if the minister could give an assurance that she will consider the possibilities in a critical sense and measure the benefit that it would bring to victims to engage in that public inquiry, should that be deemed to be the best way forward.