Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is about one in 12.

I am probably testing the committee’s patience, but this issue is important to me.

I want to follow on from Stephanie Callaghan’s question, as I have come across the same issue with people accessing statements and reports. I understand the sensitivity around that, and I fully appreciate the answer that you gave, but would it be fair to say that, when the bill was passed, it was not the Government’s expectation that the restriction order would be in place?

Again, that is helpful information. We are dealing with quite a small number—12—and the feedback I have had from one individual is that they feel that, somehow, if a person goes through the review process they could be given more help to gather more information. Some of the people who have received an increased payment offer have spent more time looking at their application, and doing that has brought new information to light. I know that the system is under pressure, which is why I ask.

I recognise up front your personal commitment to getting the scheme through in the previous session of the Parliament, and I know that there was some time pressure with regard to ensuring that that work did not go to waste. However, on some of the issues around the delays and the challenges of processing the applications, I feel that it is right to press you on the modelling and how we modelled that.

Today, you have mentioned three factors involved in the delays, and I think that there is a fourth factor, for which, as a Parliament, we are collectively responsible, which is expectation management. Survivors thought, with regard to these applications and the principles that we set out, that things might move a bit quicker than they have. We must always be cautious about that, but, with regard to the modelling, where did the idea that people would take longer to put in their applications come from? We have looked at comparator schemes elsewhere as part of drawing up the legislation, so how did we get that modelling wrong?

A number of people got an increased payment after their application was looked at again, and maybe that number of people is a bit higher than you would have hoped for or expected, so I guess that my question is, were you are satisfied with that? I know that it is a new scheme and that this is a sensitive issue, but it struck me that that number was a wee bit higher than you might have hoped.

I appreciate that.

That speaks to Mr Doris’s earlier point. I am aware that some applications that were sent in very soon after the scheme opened have still not moved forward, and I guess that they probably fall into that category. We are talking about people who were there on day 1 to make sure that they did not miss out.

Both of those points were helpful, and what you said will be appreciated.

A number of individuals who have life-limiting and serious health problems feel slightly frustrated when they hear “terminal illness”, because although they want other people who are in difficult circumstances to be successful and do not want to slow things down for them, they fall just short of the medical description of a terminal illness, and they feel that time is running out for them.

It could be a promotion.

I hear what you are saying, and I have trust and faith in people, but the question that I ask myself is whether I have trust and faith in Government ministers to listen. You are asking us to put a huge amount of trust and faith in Government ministers—rather than the Parliament itself—to do that listening. A number of organisations, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Faculty of Advocates, question whether that approach is appropriate. The Care Inspectorate has questioned whether there is enough information to know how it will work in practice. That is not getting off to a good start in building confidence, is it?