With Its Independence in Serious Doubt, Who Will Now Chair Child Abuse Inquiry?

By Stephen Naysmith
Herald Scotland
July 4, 2016

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14600023.With_its_independence_in_serious_doubt__who_will_now_chair_child_abuse_inquiry_/



John Swinney says comments made by the chair of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, Susan O'Brien QC, would have been inexplicable to abuse survivors.

He began proceedings to terminate her appointment having heard from an expert that these comments were incompatible with her role.

At the first hearing what Ms O'Brien's said does sound alarming. She appeared to minimise the offence of a teacher who had been found guilty of indecent exposure. She says this was not her intention when she apparently advanced the suggestion that the teacher may just have had a hole in his trousers.

But the teacher was found guilty, say her detractors - which is true. But he was never convicted, says the legal counsel to the inquiry - which, bizarrely is also true. In the case in question, despite the guilty verdicts, a judge granted the culprit an absolute discharge.

Ms O'Brien's other controversial comment was to report - but not to endorse - the opinion of one survivor that the experience of abuse at boarding school was "the best thing that ever happened to [them]".

Mr Swinney's position is somewhat understandable, given the powderkeg nature of the inquiry already. Several of the groups representing survivors are already highly suspicious of the way it has been set up and pessimistic about its chances of success. Angela Constance when she was the minister responsible never got to grips with this at all.

Given the hair-trigger nature of the relationships involved, Mr Swinney says he felt that Ms O'Brien could not continue, in case these comments ever became public, causing outrage among survivors.

The only problem is that, now public, they have not caused outrage.

Without exception the survivors I have spoken to have found them very much explicable. For example, Helen Holland, a leading campaigner for survivors, recalls more than one abuse victim telling her the period when they were abused was the best time in their life.

Victims can say this. I've heard it myself. They may have been treated better at this time, or made to feel special. Others feel surviving the experience made them stronger. Trauma is complicated.

Much more concern has been expressed by these groups about the claims of interference made by Scottish Government officials. Survivors want these claims investigated.

Susan O'Brien, in her resignation letter, said 'careful investigation' should have been the result of claims by her fellow panel member Professor Michael Lamb that the independence of the inquiry's work was being interfered with. She then declared herself fully in agreement with these claims.

The Inquiry has barely begun and already cost well over ?1million. Mr Swinney may well be concerned about the cost.

But the remit of the inquiry is vast. It must cover abuse not just in all forms of residential care but also in foster care. It must cover physical and sexual abuse, but also emotional and psychological abuse AND is empowered to consider "spiritual" abuse, neglect and other unacceptable practices. The timescale for all of this is 'within the living memory' of any victims.

Given such a broad remit, such an inquiry is bound to be expensive. Final totals approaching or even exceeding ?100 million have been mentioned to me.

The inquiry remains independent, Mr Swinney seems to be suggesting, as long as it doesn't spend too much. It remains to be seen how many potential chairs will be persuaded by the deputy first minister's definition of this as "independence".