Chamber and committees

I concur with Fergus Ewing’s comments because, in large parts of rural Scotland, taxis and private hire cars amount to public transport. They ferry people to hospital appointments, and they provide a lifeline in the absence of bus services. I can certainly understand the petitioner’s aim, but I do not think it is possible to fulfil the outcome.

I am going to get into trouble for going on, so I will not say anything further.

The Deputy First Minister said that she had records from when Fergus Ewing and I were on the education committee. I wonder whether she has the Official Report from Thursday 12 January 2023 in that bundle. I can read to you what your predecessor said at that meeting. He said:

“I have listened carefully to the group that has made representations to me, all the members of which are Fornethy survivors and are part of the wider group. I do not believe that, as things stand, there is an inherent impediment to applications to the redress scheme coming forward from people who spent time at Fornethy. I acknowledge that the nature of the environment in which individuals were spending time at Fornethy could be considered to fall within the ambit of the scheme, so I do not think that there is an inherent impediment to applications coming forward and being considered. To put it slightly more bluntly, I reject the idea that the scheme is not for Fornethy survivors; I think that it is possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme.”

The former Deputy First Minister went on to say, looking at the issue of whether the local authority was acting in loco parentis, if you want to put it that way, that he did not believe that the situation at Fornethy matched up with what you say. He said:

“If a young person was at a holiday camp and was dropped off and picked up by their parents, it would be difficult to substantiate the view that the state was exercising responsibility. However, I do not think that the situation at Fornethy ticks that rather neat middle-class box—if I may say so—that I have just outlined to the committee. The more I understand about the situation at Fornethy, the more I find it difficult to reconcile it with the idea of some form of voluntary endeavour, and I think that the matter hinges on that point.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 12 January 2023; c 14, ]

You have come here today and have told us repeatedly that you are following what your predecessor, who introduced the legislation, intended. There it is, in black and white. It is something quite different from what you have suggested today.

He said that people were effectively directed and put there and that the state was involved in facilitating that and probably, in a lot of cases, a little bit more. You are here now and could push the envelope a little bit—open this up again—so that some of these people would stand a better chance of getting justice. I do not know why that is hard.

Do you accept that there is a point at which the evidence is sitting here today—formed by this group? If you have lots of people saying that the same thing happened to them, it is quite unlikely that something different happened.

We would be saying to the Redress Scotland panel exactly what Parliament, the previous Deputy First Minister and several individual MSPs said repeatedly throughout the bill process—that, if those people come forward, their testimony will be believed. It will be taken as fact. We would be saying that there is provision for exceptional circumstances and that, if the testimony and evidence from those thousands of people is joined together, we can start to build a pretty accurate picture.

Some of the people involved have spoken to medical professionals and other people over the years. These concerns existed before the redress scheme came into being. People did not just appear and join survivor groups—they did not just appear and interact with services across the country when they thought redress was on offer. There are historical records. They might not be as good as the official records but, frankly, it is not the people’s fault that the organisations did not keep good records and destroyed those that they had.

It is possible that two or three of those bills could arrive together, and we talked about how many SSIs are expected before the summer. There could be periods when there are real peaks in what is coming through Parliament. It is not just in this committee, but other subject committees that are looking at new legislation, as well.

There is a balance and there is a tension. What I am asking is, do you accept that there is a tension?

Are you saying that, for example, with regard to commencement powers or even things that you do not agree with, there can be powers within the LCM that are not a cause for concern? We are trying to work out which bits to focus on.

To me, it is not a political issue; the concern is about Parliament having its say. You made the case for that in your comments. Politicians can spend all day talking about legislation, but most of my constituents, although they want to see delivery and want to see things work, do not have the time to go through legislation letter by letter and word by word to ensure that it works. Ultimately, if the legislation does not work, you do not get the delivery.

My big concern is that, although there might not be more framework bills, the bills that are coming down the line are on more substantive topics. Things such as agricultural funding and the national care service are complicated—the national care service exceptionally so—and a lot of secondary legislation will be needed to make those bills work. I am concerned about whether Parliament as a whole has the capacity to deal with that level of secondary legislation on what I think will be controversial topics. We have seen that issue with the regulation of legal services, too.

People have strong views on some things that are being left to secondary legislation. Will the committee have people in every week to talk about every one of those bills, which are contentious in relation to policy? Has the Government thought about how that will work?