The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

DEVELOPING AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY FORUM FOR ADULT SURVIVORS OF CHILDHOOD ABUSE
-A DISCUSSION PAPER

Background

During a business debate in Parliament on 7 February 2008, Scottish Ministers announced their commitment to the scoping of a Scottish Truth and Reconciliation forum (currently re-named as an Acknowledgement and Accountability Forum), initially to address issues for adults who had suffered childhood abuse whilst in care. The parliamentary statement also set out the progress being made by the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available for survivors of in care and institutional abuse, and re-emphasised a collective determination to work closely with its partners to achieve real change.

Plans were unveiled in the parliamentary statement for a national service framework to support survivors of historic in care abuse, improvements to the residential child care system (including better staff training and development), and a review of the law to address shortcomings in public records held on children in care. The specific remit of the joint Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council Inquiry into abuse at Kerelaw residential school was also detailed.

All of this work is underpinned by the National Strategy for Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse, SurvivorScotland, www.survivorscotland.org.uk, which seeks to address the effects, particularly of sexual abuse, while recognising that this often also encompasses a range of other forms of abuse. Its remit covers historical abuse, and it aims to enhance the health and wellbeing of survivors through improved self-care, community, primary and tertiary care.

This paper has been developed with the National Reference Group, set up to implement the recommendations of SurvivorScotland. Members include those who are adult survivors, and their views and experiences are invaluable in informing implementation of the strategy. Discussion has indicated that the title 'Acknowledgement and Accountability' may be a more accurate reflection of what is needed of any forum, although other suggestions are welcome.

Why is such an approach being considered for survivors in Scotland?

It is needed to acknowledge the pain experienced by survivors and to give some of them the opportunity to recount those experiences in order to secure public recognition and to assist, where possible, with their own individual recovery. Such an approach could also be useful in ensuring that some survivors receive practical help to assist them to recover as far as they are able, given the unique nature of each person's experience and response.

Recognition of the abuse of looked after children whilst in care has certainly increased since the 1990s as a result of the many large scale investigations and inquiries that have taken place. In his statement of 1st December 2004 the then First Minister gave a sincere and full apology on behalf of the people of Scotland to those who were subject to such abuse and neglect; who did not receive the level of love, care and support that they deserved and who have coped with that burden all of their lives. Most recently Tom Shaw's report has been instrumental in enabling understanding of the scale of the problem and the effects this has had on in-care survivors. This report can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/20104729/

SurvivorScotland was developed to bring about a series of changes, and make a real difference for everyone who has been affected by childhood abuse. Scoping the possibility of having a forum is part of its work. It would be naïve to suggest that such an approach would benefit everyone, or that recovery is possible for everyone, as each person's experience and response are unique. Through working closely with survivors on this programme, however, some survivors have indicated that an important part of recovery from the trauma they have experienced, would be to tell their story, be believed, and have the pain that was caused fully acknowledged.

Others have suggested that they would use such a forum to talk through the consequences of trauma, for example not being able to concentrate on school work, with a view to considering what could be done to assist them in practical ways. So for some people, it might mean getting funding to access educational opportunities. For others, it might mean getting access to counselling or therapy. For yet others, recognition of the harm is not about financial compensation. In the words of one survivor of in-care abuse: "… for me money is totally irrelevant here, it really doesn't come into it…..I always ask what good will that do …how can money possibly cure the wasted years or the horrors that will live with me and these people all our lives?"

Another reason for considering such an approach is to give the institutions and the staff concerned the chance to speak openly and honestly so that they can move on. It is also important to be able to learn from mistakes of the past and inform good practice for the future.

What a Scottish model would not do

Some survivors have indicated that for them the criminal and civil justice systems in Scotland have not, at times, been able to deliver positive outcomes for survivors of institutional abuse.

Some factors that may contribute to such a feeling are-

• the criminal justice system is about prosecution in the public interest and is not directly aimed at redress for individuals;
• civil justice tends to focus on financial compensation;
• both systems are aimed at determining particular issues and may not cover or determine all of the issues that survivors wish to be dealt with in relation to their experience;
• the adversarial nature of the criminal and civil justice systems is generally not conducive to encouraging organisations to work with, or in the interests of, survivors on the key issues of change and improvement.

These factors can undermine effective communication and understanding, and in some cases prevent mutually acceptable remedies being achieved. Whilst the criminal and civil justice systems have an important role to play, the interests of survivors, of current service users, of organisations and institutions, of government and of the people of Scotland, may ultimately be served by introducing an additional mechanism for the discussion of survivors' experiences that both helps survivors and goes some way to helping prevent children from having similar experiences in the future.

Whatever the elements of an Acknowledgement and Accountability approach in Scotland, any such support would not be offered instead of an individual's right to seek financial compensation through, for example, the criminal injuries compensation scheme or the courts system. It might serve as an alternative to those who have said that taking action to bring a civil case, even with support, is not a viable option for them because of the stress involved in such an undertaking.

Any forum is not intended as a way of bypassing legal justice either for those who have been abused or the alleged perpetrator.

In summary, survivors of abuse will have had, and continue to have, their own routes to personal reparation. Acknowledgement and Accountability would be another choice which will be open to individuals to make.

What are the challenges and opportunities for the institutions involved?

A major challenge is that any forum would need to be operated in a reconciliatory manner for both survivors and institutions. For this to be happen there will have to be clear boundaries on what the forum does and the pursuit of legal remedies through the courts.

Another challenge is the view that some survivors have that institutions are unwilling to participate in this type of forum, or that they are prevented from doing so because such involvement may lead to further litigation. Yet many institutions provide high quality support for residents, and have acted on the findings of inquiries that have reported down the years. For these institutions, the challenge is to cope with negative views about their efforts.

There could be real benefits for institutions that willingly come forward to participate in a forum. It should enable them to learn from the past and in doing so to look to the future with confidence. The creation of a public and historical record from which agencies, policy makers and the public could all learn, could contribute directly to clear and measurable improvements in safeguarding children and young people in public care.

Applying the lessons learnt from models in other countries to the Scottish context

Annex A outlines several models from other countries, some of which might contribute to the design of a Scottish Acknowledgement and Accountability Forum. There are also, as the Annex explains, different interpretations attached to words such as "truth," "justice" or "reconciliation". It is essential that respondents consider the advantages and disadvantages of the models described before answering the consultation questions.

The New Zealand experience, for example, may provide useful pointers here, Participants in the New Zealand Forum who were admitted to hospital as children or as adolescents described sexual and physical abuse and of becoming the target of sexual abuse from staff or other residents. Many said they had been discharged without the skills needed to deal with adulthood and that they were adversely affected by their experiences.

The official acknowledgement by the New Zealand State of the importance of the issue was valued from the outset, but the Forum itself stopped short of being a Commission of Inquiry that would have had the power to test and evaluate evidence. So it was not about compensation or liability. It concluded its business by writing a report in the form of a position statement but did not include recommendations. Those that participated in the New Zealand forum did so because they wanted to be taken seriously and knew that they were talking in an affirming environment, which was not checking for authenticity, but to make sense of what had happened. The focus was on their experience, their perceptions of how they were treated, and the impact of those experiences and perceptions on their lives.

Access to services and support

In other models, information, access to relevant services and agencies, including provision for access to counselling, was offered in lieu of compensation. The underpinning aspiration in these arrangements was that individuals could be supported to move on in their lives so that they would be able to enjoy the same benefits as other citizens such as meaningful relationships and employment. Commentary from informal discussion with survivors indicates that many endorse this perspective.

The models present many different opportunities for restoration. Some involve financial compensation which can enable survivors to put in place the material conditions to support recovery and growth. Other opportunities exist in relation to provision 'in kind' including counselling, supporting educational provision and training etc. All of these might play a part in achieving a satisfactory resolution for all parties.

For many survivors however, the real issues affecting their capacity to recover are less tangible. These have been referred to above, but are nonetheless vitally important particularly for agencies and institutions to understand properly and to acknowledge fully. Issues of accountability, transparency, open acknowledgement and commitment to improvement have great significance for survivors.

Survivor involvement

It is clear that any model will have to be not only survivor- led, but have at its heart a robust support system. This paper is only the start of the process, which will involve close liaison and alternative forms of discussion such as workshops or focus groups, with survivors and the organisations that represent them. As indicated earlier, the aim is to have facilitated survivor consultation as part of the process for designing any model for Scotland. Access to short, medium and long term therapy and counselling through every stage will also be considered, as will access to education and training to compensate for lost opportunity and to increase the likelihood of gaining employment. Enabling people on their journey of recovery through these and other appropriate means, could form part of any suggested compensation scheme.

It is equally clear that Scotland should not sign up to an approach that may leave individuals exposed or adversely affected by any scheme that may evolve. The Kaufman Report into the redress scheme in Nova Scotia, found that it ''left in its wake true victims of abuse who are now assumed by many to have defrauded the Government, employees who have been branded as abusers without appropriate recourse and a public confused and unenlightened about the extent to which young people were or were not abused''. Any forum set up in consequence of this consultation, would need to conduct its proceedings in a way that respected the dignity and human rights of all the participants, in particular their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the Article 6 right to a fair trial, and the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life.

Next steps

It is envisaged that the Scottish Government will take the lead role in facilitating and supporting the necessary developmental work, if it is agreed to progress an initial test or pilot of the Acknowledgement and Accountability forum. Experiences in other areas have shown that it is important for success that Government and its officials should be accountable for design and implementation. But the Forum itself should be independent of Government, and the validation process (that is the process by which it is decided who should be entitled to give evidence and who may be called to respond to survivors' testimony), needs to be managed by people independent of Government. Government must also deal with any financial implications and should build in, from the outset, mechanisms to permit ongoing assessment and improvement. However, wherever possible, changes mid-stream should be avoided since these could compound the harm to those affected. People who were abused should be respected, included in the design and implementation of any redress process and have access to comprehensive information so they can make informed choices about their participation in the process.

As a starting point, any validation process will not be required where there have been findings made in previous judicial or administrative proceedings. It must include safeguards to protect against unproven accusations and appropriate measures to respect the dignity and privacy interests of both claimants and alleged abusers. And, where abuse has occurred, we must ensure that those who are responsible for abuse, are held legally accountable where possible.

It is hoped that the Forum may:

The following questions seek your views on whether Scotland should adopt an acknowledgement and accountability model and how this might be done.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

1. Should Scotland trial an acknowledgement and accountability forum?
2. If so, do you think 'acknowledgement and accountability' is an appropriate title, or would you prefer other terms to be used?
3. If you think it should be adopted, which of the following elements would need to be included in such an approach:
   • Establishing an historical record as an act of remembrance;
   • Identifying for current institutions additional ways of safeguarding children and young people in care;
   • Recognition of levels of accountability from the individual abuser through to Scottish society as a whole;
   • Acknowledgement and apology;
   • Acceptance of levels of accountability from the individual abuser through to Scottish society as a whole;
   • Public recognition of the survivors' experience;
   • Access for survivors to short, medium and long-term therapy and counselling as necessary;
   • Access for survivors to education and training to compensate for lost opportunity and to increase the likelihood of gaining employment;
   • Enhanced access to financial compensation for survivors.
4. Who would be eligible to apply and what criteria might be appropriate for determining which applications should succeed?
5. If you don't think that acknowledgement and accountability is the way forward, what would you like to see in place instead?
6. Available research emphasises the importance of having survivors shaping what a forum would look like and what it would do. Would you agree that this is the case and, if so, how best can this be achieved?
7. What additional involvement should there be to help shape the forum?
8. The experience of other governments indicates that it is also important to involve family members. Do you agree and, if so, how can this be achieved, given that for some survivors, certain family members may be safe and supportive, others unsafe and unsupportive?
9. It is also essential to get accurate staff perspectives. How would we set about doing this?
10. Focusing on the mechanisms and process of the approach, who should lead the work and how should these individuals be appointed?
11. Testing out the approach in one geographical area may be an appropriate way to begin. What are your views on this?
12. Public awareness and understanding is critical. How do we go about achieving this?

Please feel free to add any other information or views that you consider important.

« Previous | Contents | Next »