Scotland's Redress Scheme: combined annual report 2025

4.10 De La Salle

Below is our Annual Report under the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021. We will follow the criteria set in section 99(2) of that Act.

Background

In 1992 the De La Salle Brothers (the Brothers) left the last Scottish school in which they had a presence. Whilst the Brothers had provided the Head, some Teachers and some Residential Social Workers in the schools, the Brothers were not the statutory body responsible for operating the schools, nor were the Brothers the employers of any civilian staff in the schools. The statutory responsibility for these schools rather lay with the Managers appointed under the relevant Regulations (the Approved Schools (Scotland) Regulations 1961) and the statutory predecessors of these regulations. This statutory framework has significance in the context of this report given the Managers were not only the employers, and in loco parentis to the children but the Managers, not the Brothers were also responsible for the record-keeping (Regulation 49). The impact on this Report is that, without having had the statutory responsibility for record-keeping the scope for the Brothers to engage proactively is limited but the Brothers have sought to engage when approached.

An additional hurdle is that, with the passage of time, all of the Brothers who had taught in those schools are deceased, except for two (one of whom is a former Head, aged 97, and the other is a former prisoner resulting from convictions for offences against children arising in these schools). Whilst the Head was a Brother, the Head was also an employee of the Managers (and indeed, we have a copy contract of employment with the Managers for the last Head of St Joseph’s school, Tranent, who was also a Brother).

We can confirm that following the above 2017 Limitation reforms a number of civil claims for damages were intimated on the Brothers, who have settled a number of litigations arising from former pupils. These have all been resolved.

We would also wish to add that in separate litigation proceedings in the last year the Brothers have succeeded in recovering payments from insurers for the Managers. These payments represent a reasonable proportion of a number of the settlement sums the Brothers have paid out to former pupils. In effect, the ultimate cost of a number of these claims has been split between the Brothers and the Managers’ insurers through this process. These recoveries have been made principally in separate later recovery proceedings so that claimants have not been delayed in receiving their damages. As well as what the Minutes and Logbooks have now shown on the contribution of others too, we do consider this has also vindicated our approach that the Managers (appointed under Statute) through their insurers require to accept a share of their legal liability.

Addressing specific aspects for the Annual Report we would comment as follows

Activity relating to the provision of an apology to those abused.

We can confirm that in less than 5% of those litigations that have already settled have requested an apology. Where this has been requested it has been provided promptly, individually, and unreservedly by the Brothers.

In addition, in 2024 and in early 2025 these schools have been the subject of Chapter 2 of Phase 8 of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. The Provincial, the most senior office bearer of the Brothers in the UK, along with their Safeguarding Lead, have been present for the entire Chapter of evidence concerning the Brothers. The Brothers have apologised publicly both in their Opening and Closing statements for Chapter 2 and also again at the closing of Phase 8.

A public apology was also issued by the Brothers in 2021 following the conviction of Michael Murphy for criminal offences committed by him in these schools.

Advice and assistance on accessing historical records

It will be appreciated from the above context that the Brothers were not the record keepers for the schools under the 1961 Regulations. That statutory responsibility lay with the Managers as outlined above. The Brothers only have index cards showing where and when the individual Brothers were located at any particular time. The Brothers have sought to assist the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (the Inquiry) where they can by providing these index cards to the inquiry if requested.

In the last few years, the Brothers have undertaken extensive investigations to try to locate the school records and pupil records, since these are not in the possession of the Brothers, for the reasons already outlined, namely the Brothers were not the statutory record-keepers. The Brothers made inquiries with the National Records of Scotland, with Freedom of Information requests to various local authorities and with requests to the Archdioceses. These investigations finally proved fruitful in December 2023 when a court order the Brothers had been granted in their favour uncovered that extensive records were held by East Lothian Council relative to St Joseph’s School Tranent. These also included 31 boxes of pupil records. East Lothian Council will have had these records as statutory successors of the Managers (who were the statutory record-keepers). The Brothers can now direct any inquirer to East Lothian Council for pupils’ records. The Brothers are heartened that they can assist with such SARs in the future. We would add that at the Closing Submissions of Phase 8 of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry in February 2025 we set out for the inquiry our understanding of what records had been found at East Lothian Council from those referred to for St Joseph’s School Tranent. We did so in the Closing Submission to the inquiry by reference to an Addendum paper setting out more detail of the records that we had seen, as held by East Lothian Council, relative to St Joseph’s School Tranent. This Addendum paper provided an analysis of the extensive Minutes of Managers Meetings extending over decades and also of the Daily Logbooks, also extending over decades. This has provided a flavour of the daily life of the school and the numerous stakeholders regularly in attendance and participating in decision-making and service provision, in addition to the Brothers. The Chair welcomed this additional work. The Addendum document has been loaded up onto the Inquiry website and so no doubt that can be referred to by the Chair if she so chooses when writing her report. In any event it is referred to in the Closing Submission, which submission will no doubt be publicly available in the Inquiry transcript.

Our Closing Submission of Phase 8 of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry in February 2025 also confirmed that, despite investigations, only very limited records had been uncovered for St Ninian’s School Gartmore and that a Freedom of Information request to the relevant local authority (Stirling Council) had been fruitless. We referred the Inquiry to a police statement from 2000 that we had recently uncovered that referred to the records of St Ninian’s School Gartmore having been destroyed on the instruction of the Scottish Executive/Scottish Office when the school was closed in 1982. We also pointed out to the Inquiry that there was evidence from a very elderly Brother who had taught at both these schools and who had confirmed the two schools were managed similarly. We would stress again that this additional work was done despite the Brothers having no statutory obligation (or entitlement) to have retained these records, since we were not the Managers under the 1961 Regulations and so had no responsibility for record-keeping.

The only other point we can add on the records position is that we do receive a number of SARS applications for records from solicitors acting for former pupils. When received we have pointed out to the applicants the position on record keepers under the 1961 Regulations and re-directed them to the respective local authorities (with those local authorities being the statutory successors of the Managers appointed under the 1961 Regulations).

Funding for emotional, psychological or practical support

The settlements of civil claims reached have been global ones but, in a context, where heads of claim have included an element for damages payments for counselling. Given the global settlements the Brothers do not know if any sum paid has actually been applied by any claimant for counselling or treatment, but certainly settlement funds have been provided by the Brothers which would more than cover such treatment costs. The Brothers could not insist on such treatment being sought as a condition of settlement. For the avoidance of any doubt the reference here to the lack of separate requests for counselling is intended to cover the absence of separate requests for funding for emotional, psychological, or practical support.

As an aside, the Brothers have also become aware that some of the claimants’ solicitors have retained as fees from the claimants’ damages a proportion of the damages paid by the Brothers. The Brothers would emphasise that in the course of these settlements the Brothers have also paid the claimants’ solicitors legal expenses (costs) so it appears that the claimants solicitors are receiving both legal expenses from the Brothers (who are uninsured) and also retaining a proportion of the claimant’s damages from the claimants. The Brothers would emphasise that the Brothers are not party to any such arrangements between the claimants and their own legal advisors. The Brothers do not approve that some claimants’ representatives in legal firms are doing so but the Brothers have no means to prevent that occurring, even although it limits the actual damages being received in the hands of claimants. From press reports the Brothers are aware that such legal firms also seem to be taking a proportion of Redress payments from Redress applicants but again the Brothers have no means to prevent that since it is a matter between the Redress applicants and their legal advisors.

The Brothers have not been approached by any survivors’ groups in Scotland.

Advice and assistance on tracing and reuniting families,

The Brothers involvement was in the day-to-day operation of Approved/List D Schools. Pupils arrived at such schools upon referrals through the Children’s Hearing system under the Social Work (Sc) Act 1968 so subject to compulsory measures of care. Generally, these pupils remained at such schools for about 18 months before being returned to the family setting. In those circumstances advice and assistance on tracing and reuniting families in the present day has not been an issue since the pupils were returned to the family setting in the time period proximate to their attendance in the schools concerned. At the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, we do recall one or two isolated instances where applicants gave evidence that, on their return to their families they had discovered their families had moved without notifying them prior to the return from the school in question. However, we would add that we have never seen any civil claim where an allegation has been made against us requesting such assistance or alleging failure to provide such assistance.

The Brothers took no part in any child migration from Scotland given the nature and role of the schools in which the Brothers had a presence.

Such information as considered appropriate about any other support which the relevant organisation, has provided for individuals who were abused as children.

In this respect the Brothers would reiterate that the impact on this Report is that, without having had the statutory responsibility for record-keeping the scope for the Brothers to engage proactively in other support is limited, but the Brothers have sought to engage when approached as outlined elsewhere in this report.

Having withdrawn from the last Scottish school in 1992 the Brothers have no presence in Scotland. The Brothers educate around 900,000 children globally. The Brothers have appropriate measures in place in the jurisdictions in which they are still present to ensure the relevant local safeguarding policies and care measures are in place. The Brothers have sought to listen and learn at the Scottish inquiry, through attending every day, and are in the process of feeding back those lessons into their communities in other jurisdictions.

Finally, we would add that we have been in a dialogue with the Scottish Government upon Redress. Whilst we acknowledge that the scheme’s Statement of Principles have been revised partly taking into account the reservations raised by us about the role of other parties, such as the Managers, there are still a number of challenges around Redress. We would reiterate that we remain committed to continuing to monitor the progress of the Redress scheme generally and to keep under review our relationship to it.

Brother Benidict Hanlon FSC,

Chair of the De La Salle GB CIO