Financial redress for historical child abuse: consultation summary

Definition of ‘in care’.  We suggest there are two parts to this definition.  First, that an institution or body had long-term responsibility for the child in place of the parent.  Second, that the child spent time in an eligible residential setting, largely based on the terms of reference of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry.  Examples of settings which would be included are children’s homes, secure care units, borstals, boarding schools, foster care.

We want to know what you think about our suggested approach to defining ‘in care’.  It would mean that children who were sent to boarding schools by their parents for education would not be eligible to apply to the scheme.  It would also mean that children who spent time in hospital for medical treatment would not be eligible.  The detailed reasons for this are explained in the full consultation paper. 

Definition of ‘abuse’.  We suggest that this includes sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect.  The definition is based on the one recently used in Scottish legislation on childhood abuse and the civil court claims.

We want to know what you think of this definition of abuse.

Defining ‘historical’ abuse.  We need to set a date to say what we mean by historical abuse.  There were significant changes in the standards, regulation and monitoring of the care system in Scotland from 2001 onwards.   We suggest setting the date of 1 December 2004 – this was when the then First Minister of Scotland made a public apology to survivors of historical child abuse in care.

We want to know what you think of 1 December 2004 as a suitable date for defining historical abuse.

Some survivors were also child migrants.  They may have also applied to the UK Government’s redress scheme for former British child migrants.  If they meet the eligibility of this redress scheme and were abused when in care in Scotland they will be able to apply to the redress scheme.  This should be the case even if they have received a payment in relation to any abuse they might have suffered elsewhere, or because they were part of the UK migration programme.

We want to know what you think about our suggestion that child migrants who suffered abuse in care in Scotland should be eligible to apply for redress.

Redress schemes in other countries have taken different approaches to the eligibility of those with a criminal conviction.  In our view, someone with a criminal conviction should not be excluded from applying if they meet the eligibility of the scheme.

We want to know what you think about this proposal.