Official Report 941KB pdf
The next item on our agenda is to take evidence from Professor Alexis Jay, independent chair of the national strategic group on child sexual abuse. Following this session, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs.
Professor Jay, welcome to the meeting and thank you for agreeing to attend at short notice. By way of an introduction, could you tell us what your understanding is of the scale of child sexual exploitation and abuse in Scotland, where it has been in the past few years and, crucially, what victims can expect from the work that you are undertaking at the moment and will do in the coming weeks and months?
It is relatively easy to answer your first question: not enough is known about the situation of child sexual exploitation in Scotland. That is, of course, similar in other parts of the United Kingdom. You will know that I chaired the public inquiry in England and Wales into child sexual abuse and exploitation. When it came to the investigation area of sexual exploitation, we described the picture as being unreliable, confused and confusing. I do not know whether that applies to Scotland, but certainly, the impression that I have gained from examination of existing data is that, apart from the fact that any aspect of child sexual abuse is underreported, it appears that there are low levels of reporting of child sexual exploitation by organised networks. I was surprised by that.
You mentioned the data. What quantity and quality of data is available at the moment? Is that a major barrier to making progress here?
Yes, it is. It is a major barrier anywhere. I have no information that suggests that Scotland is worse than England and Wales, but we simply do not know. Indeed, I would just quote Louise Casey, whom I know and whose short audit finding earlier this year was that there was no reliable data that she could adduce in this respect.
You mentioned your review and the recommendations. Those were for England and Wales, but one of the recommendations was for mandatory reporting. Where are we on that in Scotland? What is the Scottish Government’s view on mandatory reporting?
I do not speak for the Scottish Government, but I can say that the national strategic group, of which, in my new role, I am independent chair, is in the process of setting up a sub-group to examine mandatory reporting and its relationship to the sexual abuse of children. That sub-group has yet to meet and have a convener appointed, but I understand that that will happen very soon. Certainly, in my role as chair, I can say that we will be hearing the views of that sub-group, and that sub-group will, I assume, organise a range of activities to ascertain the views of a much wider range of stakeholders, very much including victims and survivors.
For your information, my position on that is clear, because it was one of our three major recommendations in my public inquiry. That was very significantly based on the thousands of victims and survivors from whom we heard, especially in the public hearings. We always asked people what would have made a difference to them when they were children or would have helped them through the appalling experience that they had. By far the majority of survivors stated that what would have helped more than anything else would have been having a trusted adult who they could talk to and who would do something to make the abuse stop. In that sense, they strongly supported mandatory reporting.
Why do we not have mandatory reporting? Why is there a sub-group? That seems to be delaying the implementation further when you made a clear recommendation to other Governments. I am not sure why we do not have mandatory reporting at the moment.
I do not have an answer for that. We spent a great deal of time in the public inquiry looking at the models that have been in operation elsewhere for several years to see what we could learn from them.
The devil is often in the detail, but that would be covered by guidance. Legislative change would be required to put mandatory reporting in place and ensure that it occurred.
At one stage, trade unions in England and Wales voiced concerns about the impact on teachers and others, and professional groups have expressed concerns about how mandatory reporting would affect child protection caseloads, because of the possibly significant impact of false reporting. However, my inquiry heard research evidence from some parts of Australia where mandatory reporting had been implemented, and from the state of Victoria in particular, that suggested that, although there was an increase in reports—and a number of false reports—after the initial implementation of mandatory reporting, that quickly settled down after about 18 months. The value of mandatory reporting was that the reporting of child sexual abuse went up significantly, with something like 27 per cent more real cases being reported. I cannot see why one would not pursue that if it achieves an additional number of children being able to access help.
That is helpful.
Professor Jay, you will also be aware that a quote you gave in January of this year was used in the chamber by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. There have been a number of urgent questions about that, and correspondence between you and the Government that was released last week showed that you sought a clarification, and that a clarification was made to the minute of a body of which you are a member. However, the Official Report of our Parliament still says this:
“Is Mr Kerr aware of the work led by Professor Alexis Jay, who was the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales and who currently sits on our national strategic group? She shares my view and has put on the record and stated to the media that she does not support further inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation, given the significant time and resource already spent in the review that she led, the Casey audit and other reviews. She says that it is now time that
‘people should just get on with it’.”
Liam Kerr, in responding to that intervention, said:
“The cabinet secretary has put that on the record”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 31.]
and that is still on the record of our Parliament. It is the only such reference in that debate. Do you think that a clarification that was made to the minutes of the strategic group should also be clarified in our Parliament’s Official Report?
I wanted accessible clarification, which is one of the reasons why, rather than have a response directly from Ms Constance, I opted for it to be contained in the minutes, which were accessible to anyone on the website. That clarification was recorded.
I do not have a view on how the parliamentary process works to correct the Official Report. I suppose that I had made an assumption that, having gone through that bit of process, somehow or other, it would be amended somewhere but I am afraid that I do not know enough about the process to know how that is obtained.
There is a process. If the Official Report were amended in the same way as the minutes of the advisory group, would you welcome that?
Yes, I would.
We have seen in your correspondence that there has been a lot of dialogue. You raised your concerns on, I think, 26 September but were still raising concerns on 26 November. Are you satisfied by the fact that the cabinet secretary was still portraying her quote of your words in Parliament as accurate? You were saying that it was not accurate and you did not believe that a satisfactory resolution had been achieved at that point.
Yes, but let me be clear about why I did that in November. It was because, at that stage, I was being pressed by various media contacts to publish the communication that I had sent to Ms Constance. I did not believe that it was my responsibility to do that. I suppose that I had thought that the recipient of the communication would have done so as part of a process and I had no wish to escalate the matter any further or, indeed, to make it adversarial with Ms Constance. That was not my intention, but I was surprised that there had been no publication of my letter. However, as I say, I am not familiar with how those matters are addressed in the Parliament.
It is all now published. We are grateful for that and for your coming to the meeting.
We have a lot of members on the committee, so I will now move to questions from Jackie Dunbar.
Good morning, Professor Jay. Thank you so much for taking the time to come along at such short notice. I will ask you a couple of questions about the strategic group that you are now the independent chair of. Sometimes, people hear the term “strategic group” but nobody asks the questions to get underneath that. Who will be on the strategic group? What input did you have in ensuring that they would be at the table?
The national strategic group has been in existence for—I am trying to remember precisely—approximately two years and was not initially independently chaired. It was co-chaired by different people. One might say that they were Government representatives and others. However, in the past year, we have seen a lot of progress under the co-chairing of someone from Police Scotland and the chief social work adviser. We have seen some movement in setting up sub-groups of the people round the table.
It is a large group and has been from the beginning but I appreciate the fact that there are many people with years of experience and knowledge in the area of child sexual abuse. I believe that we have an appropriate grouping of people to do what needs to be done for Scotland to be more proactive in the area.
The one issue that we have not yet properly clarified is engagement with, or the involvement of, survivors. My personal view on that is that the first thing that we need to do is talk to them. There is no such thing as a single survivor community. There are lots of different people who have totally different and equally awful experiences, but they come from different areas and have differing views about how to be engaged in these matters. I know all that from my role as chair of the public inquiry in England and Wales, where more than 7,000 survivors were eventually significantly involved in the inquiry. However, with the strategic group, it was important that we talked to people, heard what they had to say and found ways of accommodating in different formats how they wanted to be involved with the group’s work.
08:45
What do you see as the strategic group’s purpose moving forward? You said that there will be sub-groups—will there be a main group and then sub-groups in which the work is undertaken, depending on folks’ specialties? Is that how you envision it?
I am still to talk to the members about that because, although it will not be the group’s first meeting, the meeting in January will be the first that I have chaired. I think that it will be a combination of what you mentioned. For example, as the convener just mentioned, there will be a sub-group on mandatory reporting, and a group on education and training has already been set up because, as you might know, how much the various professionals concerned know about organised networks and child sexual exploitation varies, and the issue is not only organised networks. Nevertheless, the approach will combine improving professional knowledge and equipping people as effectively as possible to address the issues, and taking very specific approaches to the issues that I want to discuss such as modern slavery, which involves—again, I am sure that you know this—children under 18 years old, and mostly girls but sometimes boys, who are brought into the country for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
We could explore so many issues, and the first thing that I will do is discuss what is on the agenda. Discussions about that have occurred before, but I intend to revisit the matter.
Thank you.
Thanks for joining us, Professor Jay. I do not want to dwell too much on the quote issue, but it would be useful to ask for one point of clarification. You helpfully said that you had opted for the correction to be included in the minutes of the strategic group for accessibility reasons. Was the correction added to the minutes as an addendum after the meeting, or was it discussed and agreed in a meeting of the group?
Simply, I opted for that to be included. At the next meeting of the group, it was not discussed; it was noted that a correction was to be made to the statement.
Grand. So it was mentioned at a meeting as well as in the minutes.
It was actually the first item at the next meeting after the debate.
That is very helpful—thanks.
More importantly, I am interested in what we can and should do right now, because your strategic group will undertake a huge amount of work, particularly on data collection, and there is potential for a public inquiry. Other members will ask more specific questions about that but, if it takes place, it will likely take years. Substantial amounts of work have been done in the area already, so what should be done here and now to protect children and secure justice for survivors that is separate to the on-going work of gathering more data and identifying what further steps can take place?
I should have mentioned earlier that data is the most important aspect of this phase in getting an accurate picture of what is happening. It is difficult to say that there are immediate steps that ought to be taken until we know the nature and scale of what we are dealing with and where. There are distinctive roles for different agencies. The review of past cases would be helpful for survivors, for a start. As I understand it, the police intend to consider past cases that are unresolved to ascertain whether further investigation is required. If that were to occur, that would certainly give comfort to some victims in the circumstances.
It is absolutely essential that we hear directly from survivors and listen to what they have to tell us about their experiences. You may know about the truth project that we ran in England and Wales, which was the first of its kind to be operated in parallel with a public inquiry, albeit not directly related to it. It was an important way of hearing from a much larger number of people than those who could be heard in a public hearing associated with a public inquiry. We heard from thousands of people, and we did other things. We had an online survivor forum, which was very well attended: something like 1,800 people joined it regularly. We also had a victim and survivor consultative panel, consisting of a smaller number of people. Up to the point when the public hearings began, they were there to give advice about the truth project and other matters.
There are no quick fixes, but there are things that could be done. Another issue concerns recording data. We made a recommendation that ethnicity and disability ought to be recorded—those of both perpetrators and victims. In England and Wales we found that, in many instances, those details were not recorded for children. Sometimes that meant that they were not given appropriate support, given their cultural backgrounds and any disabilities. Disability is one of the predisposing factors in child sexual abuse. Others are being accommodated and away from home—being in care in various ways. There are only a few known and proven factors that may lead to child sexual abuse occurring.
I would like to clarify something briefly—I am conscious of the time. Is it your understanding that the Police Scotland review of historical cases is a systematic review, or would survivors have to approach the police individually to ask that their case be reviewed?
I am afraid that I cannot answer that. I do not know about the detail of how the review is going to operate.
That is not a problem—we can write to Police Scotland in the new year.
Professor Jay, on Mr Greer’s opening question about the clarification in the group minutes, did that suggestion come from you? Did you think that that would be the appropriate body for that clarification? Did someone in the Scottish Government suggest, “You have raised your concerns; this is the vehicle that we suggest for changing that”?
No. I am clear about that. I was offered two options via the chief social work adviser. One was to receive a letter directly from the minister, addressing my concerns; the other was for the clarification to be included in the minutes of the national strategic group.
As I said, I chose the latter because I thought that it would be more accessible if people could see it on a website and understand my concerns. I was aware that a freedom of information request could lead to my letter being published, which ended up happening, but I chose the option that I did because I thought that that would be quicker and, as I said, more accessible. However, I was given the choice of both.
You were not offered an opinion that the cabinet secretary could change the Official Report.
No.
The public way that the Government suggested to you was to amend the minutes, with no other record being changed.
The minutes were not amended; it was included—
As an addendum.
Yes, that is correct. Those were the two options.
Thank you.
Ross Greer and I are both members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which has recently been considering whether public inquiries are cost-effective and so on. Professor Jay, are there terms of reference for the review that you are carrying out? Is there a budget? Is there a timescale?
Although I am contributing to the review, I am not centrally involved in those matters, which will largely be down to the discussions with and the instructions to the four inspectorates. I understand that timescales have been set out. I do not mean that this has all been done without contact with me—I heard a little about this yesterday—but, largely, those matters will be agreed with the four inspectorates.
I have raised the question about the budget, because I might wish to do things separate from what the inspectorates could do in order to encourage people to come forward.
One of the outcomes of the review might or might not be that there should be a full public inquiry. Is that correct?
Yes. It will depend on what we, collectively, find.
What is your opinion on public inquiries? In the finance committee, we have found that some public inquiries can go on for a long time, which can be disappointing for victims, because they might hope to get something a bit more quickly. There is also the question of expense. At the moment, one inquiry in Scotland has cost £50 million and another has cost £100 million. That takes money away from front-line services. Do you feel that public inquiries are often a good thing, or are they a good thing only sometimes?
The House of Lords recently published a report on public inquiries, which you might be interested to read. I contributed to that, as did other chairs of and secretaries to inquiries.
From my perspective, I know that, depending on the subject matter and the approach that is taken, public inquiries can bring some satisfaction to victims and survivors, because they might have what they see as their day in court. It is hugely important that they are able to publicly attest to what has happened to them and to set out where authorities, systems and Governments have failed. Another important aspect is that, generally, public inquiries accurately establish the facts. That is one of the first things that a public inquiry does. Public inquiries also must be impartial and objective.
Public inquiries are expensive—we might come on to that—but I think that there would be general agreement that their biggest weakness is that there is no monitoring of the recommendations that are made. Often, recommendations are made by people who know a great deal about the subject and come to certain conclusions about what should change and what should happen, but nothing then happens. For a considerable time, that was the case in relation to the public inquiry that I chaired. I spoke about the issue earlier, but my comment in January this year was to do with the fact that, up until that point, nothing had been done about the final 20 cross-cutting recommendations, which were mostly for the Government—
09:00
I do not want to cut you off, but we are tight for time. I hope that the committee’s report will come out in the next few weeks, which will cover some of that.
Looking forward, my understanding is that the inquiry that will take place in England will have a time limit of three years and a cost limit of £65 million. In our experience in Scotland, it is a little bit unusual that there should be a time limit. Some judges argue that there should never be a time limit. What are your thoughts on that? Is it realistic?
I do not know yet, because I do not know the detail of it. You are right that it is very unusual. A public inquiry is supposed to be free from any political intervention and to operate as it sees fit. Needless to say, you need to know something about the funding and the plan for the inquiry, but if you set time and finance limits, some people would say that that imposes restrictions from the beginning, which I think is the view that you were articulating. Of course, there has to be something that is quicker than the processes that are currently in place.
I will leave it at that.
Paul McLennan would like to ask about data issues.
I want to go back to the point about data, because I think it is important that the review is evidenced based. There are a couple of key things. First, you reflected on your experiences in England and Wales. Can you tell me what the role of the strategic group is in compiling the data and what you see as being the initial approach? I know that you have to speak to the group, but what are your initial thoughts about collecting data? You mentioned that that is the most important point at this stage.
It is, absolutely, the most important thing. You will not be surprised to hear that data collection is a hugely complex issue. You need to set out some principles for it. Data collection is happening, but we do not consider it to be reliable in Scotland—or, as it happens, in England and Wales. For example, different places could be using different definitions even of what a network is or of what child sexual exploitation is. We have standard definitions, but they are not always applied. There needs to be a great deal more rigour and consistency. There are experts in the field and, naturally, the Scottish Government has a chief statistician who plays a leading role in that. There is already a separate group—not from the group that I am about to chair, but from another part of the system—that is looking at what can be done to tighten up the collection of data to make it accurate and reliable, which is what we need.
The role of the strategic group is important, and you chair that group. I think that you are saying that data is the number 1 key thing at group meetings. I know that you have to speak to other members of the group, but what are your initial thoughts on how the group will engage with the data question at future meetings?
We will get reports from the separate group. As I understand it, that group is being set up currently in recognition of the problems with data. I believe that that is under way. I am sure that people in the group that I chair will be engaged as part of it. It is very specialist knowledge. We would hope that whatever the group comes up with will be fed back to us. It absolutely must tackle the question of consistency across Scotland, as well as the issues of accuracy and reliability.
Professor Jay, I am interested in who your main ministerial contact is and whether that has changed over time, with your engagement.
Actually, I am not sure yet. The formal offer of my becoming chair was made by Ms Gilruth, so I have to assume that she will be the formal contact. However, in respect of one of my responsibilities, which is to keep Scottish ministers advised of progress, it could clearly be more than one person.
Has Angela Constance been a regular correspondent with you?
Not about the matters that we have been discussing, no.
And the First Minister?
I had a scheduled phone call with the First Minister quite early on in the process. At that stage, he was weighing up different options for moving forward and, quite correctly, asked specifically about the experience in England and Wales.
How do we rebuild trust with survivors? From your experience, what are the key steps that we need to take?
I am sorry to repeat myself, but I will do so briefly. We need to make contact with a range of people who represent different interests among the victim and survivor groups in Scotland. I do not even know how many smaller groups there are. There are often smaller local groups, and there are other kinds of interest groups, such as those who were abused in schools and educational settings. People have different experiences depending on the circumstances of their sexual abuse. It is a matter of looking broadly and specifically at some of these matters.
Finally, some groups are concerned that, if there is mandatory reporting, young people might be less likely to open up and share their experiences. Is that one of your concerns about mandatory reporting?
It is not one of my concerns, although it needs to be managed. However, it is the case, and, when we talked to groups of young people in England and Wales, we had to be very careful in our engagement with under-18-year-olds, because they could be very vulnerable. Nevertheless, there was anxiety. One of the main concerns was that they were anxious about talking to the police.
Mr Rennie was asking about survivors, and I know that Mr Adam would like to ask about victims and survivors.
Good morning, Professor Jay. I am sorry for dragging you here at such short notice in the week before Christmas.
The most important people in all of this are the victims and survivors and their families. One of the main remits of your strategic group is to consider how the views of children and young people, and the views of families and victims, are reflected. You will start in January, officially—is that right?
In relation to chairing the group—yes.
At that meeting in January, when you reflect on that issue, is there anything in particular that you will want to do differently in order to cut through to victims and families?
Yes. From the beginning, the group has had a certain nervousness about how victims and survivors ought to be engaged in the work that we are doing. Of course, that will happen in certain ways already, because of the contacts that a number of people have. Indeed, I am told that there is a group of survivors who have regular contact with the Scottish Government through a member of the existing group and the chief social work adviser.
There is that group already, but there is such a diverse group of people that you need to be inclusive about it and find out how such a range of people with different concerns might wish to be involved or not be involved at all. That is why I said that we possibly need to look at different ways of involving people. The first step is to talk to people and ask what they would be comfortable with.
You bring up an extremely important point. It is such a diverse group of people who are dealing with different issues and challenges. I am probably asking you to look into a crystal ball at this stage, but how do you deal with the fact that it is such a diverse group? How do you manage to get them together? The strategic group is also about ensuring that public services are improved. How do you get that group of people to feel that they are getting some benefit and that services are improving for the future?
Technically, in almost any policy development, you should be talking to the people who actually access the services about whether they are good enough at the moment and what needs to improve. Although there is probably already quite a lot that could be done, we also need to look at how children and young people might access services, which would be different from how adult survivors access them. That would be a starting point before we get into what should be done to improve the services for them.
It is a very sensitive area, and a number of young people are not that keen on coming forward to talk about such things. Years ago, when I did the first of my work in this area, in Rotherham, we found ways to encourage them—usually through youth workers and others—although, at that stage, services were not being cut back as they often are now, because they are non-statutory. Youth workers were excellent at organising groups of young people. We would meet them in a community centre and talk to the young people without making direct eye contact and usually when they were having something to eat that we funded. It was quite an eye opener that the approach that needed to be taken with young people was completely different from that taken with adult survivors.
That would be a starting point. Soft intelligence is also extremely important.
I know that a lot of local authorities in Scotland are already working on different ways of going to where people are as opposed to where we think they should be.
That is absolutely correct. I will not go on about it, but there are ways in which most agencies could improve how they manage that.
Meetings of the strategic group take place quarterly. Earlier, you said that you have the option of doing some deep dives and having sub-committees. Are you looking at getting further details through a deep dive into any specific issue at this stage?
Not necessarily, but if we need to have more than quarterly meetings, I am more than happy to do that and to make sure that we do not lose sight of things because of the timescales. I will discuss that with the group at the meeting in January in relation to all these matters. There is an agenda, and there are a number of things that need to be looked at in more detail. I hope that everyone will contribute to that and that we will set out a programme.
I wonder if I can return briefly to the engagement between you and Scottish ministers. Prior to the statement that Angela Constance made in the chamber in reference to Liam Kerr’s amendment, did she or any other Scottish minister contact you at any point to ascertain your view on using that quote? I just want to check. At any point, did anyone contact you for your view on that?
09:15
Not about that quotation or the context of it—no.
That is helpful for clarity.
I will move on to the strategic group and the idea of a review. People are slightly conflating that with the fact that there is a strategic group that is doing work but there is not yet an independent review. It would be useful to understand your view of that for the Official Report.
I understand why it is a little difficult to follow. It is quite an unusual arrangement to have four inspectorates taking forward work. I am, to some extent, part of that work, because my role would be to provide them with professional expertise about child sexual exploitation. I was particularly keen to assist in the development of the methodology that they would use when going into local areas in order to ascertain how far local areas were taking action to address the issues and what had been done, mostly via what are known as the chief officers groups in each area.
It is an unusual arrangement. I am not sure whether committee members are aware of this, but the inspectorates have guarded their independence of ministers and others quite carefully. I say that as somebody who was a chief inspector of an inspectorate some time ago. I am sure that it is workable, but I agree that it is not entirely clear at this stage. However, work is going on, and it is progressing. Although it is important to get everything right, it is also important that it is done at some pace; otherwise it could get mired in the weeds of details and so on.
I think that everyone would share that view about the importance of pace and of getting to the detail. That is why I was concerned to read on Monday reports that the four inspectorates were, to some extent, not aware of this review group or of the work that was going to be done and what they were going to be asked. Indeed, I think that the Care Inspectorate said that it learned of the group only when the cabinet secretary referred to it in the chamber. Is that your understanding?
I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. I am not sure what the statement from the Care Inspectorate covered. A lot has happened in a short space of time. I simply do not know that at the moment.
Is it fair to say that you would expect clear terms of reference and clear guidance to be given to those inspectorates, and that that will perhaps be part of your role?
I can confirm what happened, I think, only yesterday in that Scottish ministers have to issue directions to the inspectorates as to what they wish them to do. I understand that that is happening.
In your view, who is leading this process? Are Scottish ministers giving direction to the inspectorates, or is there one person who is leading it? There is an assumption that you are doing so, to some extent.
Well, that is not the case. I would play an important role in it, but it is not the case that I am leading it.
The two of the four inspectorates that are taking the lead, as it were, are His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland and the Care Inspectorate. As I understand it, those two have been bringing the four together. This has all happened in a fairly short space of time. However, I am not leading the review.
There is a degree of confusion because the landscape is a little cluttered—you have already briefly touched on that point. Do you understand why there is a frustration among victims about who is leading the process and who is able to get them the answers they require?
I am not sure whether a review process could immediately get them the answers they require, but they could at least be talked to about the process and what will happen, or they could be consulted. Of course I understand the point—I have had a great deal of experience working alongside victims and survivors in England and Wales, and I know the importance of engaging with them, which is why that is one of the most important things for me to take forward in my chairing role of the national strategic group.
Given the exchange we have just had, Professor Jay, is it your view that actually we need an independent review? You have previously called for that, alongside the work we have just discussed. If the Government were to ask you to lead such a piece of work, would you be open to that?
That is not where we are at the moment, and I can only work with what people have asked me to do.
If you are asking me whether I think that the arrangement is workable, then yes, I am sure that it is. However, I do not know the details about it right now. If it were to be deemed necessary to have a single person in the leadership role, I would of course consider it, depending on what the Government wanted me to do. Like anybody else, I would consider that. However, I do not want to sound as if I do not support the current process. Clearly, we have to get on. Work has already been done by the inspectorates, and I have a contribution to make to that. We will have to see how the work develops.
Professor Jay, you say that the current process is workable, but is it optimal? Is it the best process that we could have to get answers for victims?
I do not know the answer to that at the moment, because the process has scarcely started. It is hard for me to comment. Maybe you should ask me to come back in a few months’ time.
We may do that. Was there any dialogue with you regarding what was being proposed? Did people feed in, or did Government ministers and advisers come to you to say, “This is what we are doing”? Was there an opportunity to develop the process?
I have had regular meetings with the chief social work adviser and her deputy. In so far as they were aware of everything that was going on, they were able to keep me informed. However, in truth, I do not know how the day-to-day detail is going to work.
Okay, thank you.
In response to Mr O’Kane, you said that the Government had not asked you about your quote before it was used in the Parliament. However, you were emailed on 12 September to be told about Mr Kerr’s amendment. The email, which is from a civil servant, also stated:
“Our Minister will NOT support these amendments”.
The email added:
“Highlighting not for any proactive response but I am mindful you may be contacted for a view.”
Were you emailed about any other amendments? There were hundreds of other amendments to the bill. Was that the only amendment that the Scottish Government proactively emailed you about?
That is correct. As I understood it, the email was for information in case I was contacted by the media. As I have stated, I was not aware of the amendment before that. Certainly, Mr Kerr did not contact me—nor would I have expected him to.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning, Professor Jay—thank you for joining us. Has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs at any point offered you an apology for how your position was misrepresented in the Parliament?
Yes, she did. I had a scheduled phone call at her request. I cannot remember the date, but it was a couple of weeks ago. She apologised for my name being bandied around in the Parliament—that is the briefest way that I can put it—given how that must have been quite difficult.
She did apologise. To be perfectly clear, in writing to her, I never sought, nor do I still seek, an apology; what I wanted was an accurate record.
For those of us who have served in Parliament for some time, this whole affair of how the matter has been corrected is strange. We have procedures for how we correct our records in Parliament, and they have clearly not been followed in your case.
The call that you have referenced was on 6 December, I think.
Yes.
Do you know whether a Government official was present at it, and was a minute of that conversation logged and shared with you?
It was not shared with me. It was obviously not the first time that I have been involved in such matters, and I have always understood that, on most such occasions, someone would be taking a note of such phone calls or any kind of meeting, but I did not receive anything.
On the occasion when I had an arranged call with Mr Swinney early on in the process—not about this matter, of course—he was perfectly clear that the call was being noted. I received a draft, and it was absolutely in order.
I think that the call on 6 December should have been shared with you, too, under the code of conduct: it would be for civil servants to do that.
I want to ask about the chief social work adviser. That is your main point of contact within Government, and then there is the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. How many meetings have you had with Jenny Gilruth in this period?
I had one scheduled meeting with Jenny Gilruth, and the primary purpose of it was to formally offer me the role of chair of the national strategic group. She mentioned other matters, but those have already been covered. There was nothing exceptional in that; it was perfectly in order. Matters to do with child sexual exploitation were mentioned. However, that offer of the role was the main purpose of that meeting, as I understood it.
Over the 10 years I have been in Parliament, as an Edinburgh MSP, we have received a lot of communications from victims and their families about on-going concerns, especially here in Edinburgh, on the destruction and loss of vital evidence and records, held not only by the Government but by Police Scotland, local authorities, health services and education departments. That can be on-going, in that the evidence that people seek could be getting destroyed as we speak. How widespread do you think that is? How important is it that the inquiry gets going, so as to get hold of the evidence before it is destroyed?
There are two aspects to your question that are often overlooked.
The inquiry in England and Wales that I chaired was a public inquiry. We are not at that stage in Scotland—if we ever get to that stage—but the first thing was that the solicitor to the public inquiry would write to all the key agencies and tell them not to destroy anything. That is really just a warning shot. We cannot check what we do not know, of course, but that was a clear warning shot that documents that could have any kind of relevance must not be destroyed.
Regarding the historic parts of our investigative work in particular, we heard about the most extraordinary bonfires of documents, files and so on, especially in human resources—what we call now HR files or personnel files—where there might have been records of complaint about individual persons. I am not talking only about lone agencies; I am taking about church organisations and all sorts of institutions and places where records mysteriously disappeared. That is one part of it.
09:30Another part of what you are talking about—I will be brief—is that, in my inquiry, we heard a great deal from victims and survivors about the issue of access to records. Part of what they said was to do with what I have just described, but other parts involved their frustration at receiving redacted files. That is very annoying. I know the reasons for it, which involve third-party access, but, nevertheless, access to records really matters.
In fact, in our final 20 recommendations, we said that the Information Commissioner ought to provide proper guidance for how access to records should be managed for people in those circumstances and others. It is an important issue for people who are trying to put together what on earth happened to them—especially as children—and what was known about it, why they were placed in certain places and so on. That is an important matter.
You may be aware of a petition that has been passing through the Parliament for some time in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing. I pay tribute to the petitioners—Alison Dickie, Bill Cook, Christine Scott and Neil McLennan—who have been working tirelessly on that. That petition suggests the establishment of an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and wider children’s services. Given your experience and work in the rest of the United Kingdom, would you support that call?
I do not know enough about it, but certainly I will now find out about that petition. The issues would be about the detail and what the boundaries might be around the role of such a person. I cannot think that it would be anything but helpful to have that, but I do not know the detail of the petition.
In response to Miles Briggs, you spoke about the call with Angela Constance. In the emails that were released, it says that on 27 November at 9.33 in the evening, you were told:
“I have a request from Ms Constance’s office for a private call with yourself.”
Was it a private call between you and Angela Constance? Were you aware of anyone else on the call?
I was not aware of anybody else on the call. I do not know whether there should or should not have been. Nevertheless, it was a brief call—when I say brief, I mean that it was scheduled for 15 minutes but I do not think that it lasted that long.
Thank you very much, Professor Jay. On behalf of the committee, I say how much we appreciate your agreeing to join us at short notice and your answers today. I think that there has also been an offer through the Government for you to meet committee members and other spokespeople—we are extremely grateful for your doing that.
I wish you well with your endeavours. It is important work that you have to do to get answers for victims who have not had answers for so much time. We all wish you well in your work.
I thank members for their courtesy and for asking well-informed questions.
Thank you. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a change of witnesses.
09:33 Meeting suspended.
Welcome back. We will now hear from our next panel of witnesses. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Iona Colvin, chief social work adviser, and Andrew Watson, director for children and families.
Welcome to the meeting. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for agreeing at short notice to come along today. I understand that the cabinet secretary would like to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you, and good morning. I am very grateful to the committee for allowing me to make a short statement, so that I can put on public record the apology that I gave privately to Alexis Jay for the fact that there has been so much focus not on her eminent work or on the substance of child protection, but on remarks that I made in the chamber. It was never my intention for Professor Jay to be the subject of so much intrusion and attention, and I very much regret that.
With regard to Liam Kerr’s urgent question on 19 November, I unfortunately could not attend chamber, due to being away from Parliament on Scottish Government business, so another minister had to reply. On reflection, I should have written to Mr Kerr and provided then the information that has been provided since.
I wrote to Mr Kerr twice in relation to two of his stage 3 amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill—which, incidentally, I am very proud of—to explain why I could not support those amendments. Work led by experts was already on-going, through the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group and Police Scotland’s review of historical and existing cases. The research that he proposed, which was to be undertaken, within three years, by a commissioner who had yet to be established or appointed, would have been a duplication of that work. I repeated that argument in the grouping debate on 16 September.
In a later intervention on Mr Kerr regarding data, I quoted what Professor Alexis Jay said in an interview in January with BBC Radio 4. I did not state that Professor Jay was commenting on Liam Kerr’s amendments; I was making a general point on Professor Jay’s views on calls for further inquiries.
As the committee will be aware from reading the Official Report, I started by saying:
“Is Mr Kerr aware of the work led by Professor Alexis Jay, who was the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales and who currently sits on our national strategic group? She shares my view and has put on the record and stated to the media that she does not support further inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation, given the significant time and resource already spent in the review that she led, the Casey audit and other reviews. She says that it is now time that
‘people should just get on with it’.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 31.]
Professor Jay wrote to me on 26 September, noting that, although I had correctly quoted her, her comments were made in the context of a public inquiry in England and Wales, not Liam Kerr’s amendment. She said that
“the Scottish Government should urgently take steps to establish reliable data”
and that she had already been in discussions with officials about how that might be achieved. She also asked for her position to be clarified.
Officials contacted Professor Jay on 3 October, proposing to do that at the meeting of the strategic group that was scheduled for 8 October and noting that minutes of such meetings are published. Professor Jay responded on 6 October, agreeing to that. That was done as planned, and the minutes were published on 18 November.
I conclude by addressing the most important people in all of this, who are the victims. I have been driven in my work by the experiences of victims, who must have their voices heard. That is why I established what is now the Scottish child abuse inquiry with the education secretary and why I took forward the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025.
Although the focus of some in the past few weeks has been on the way in which I quoted Professor Jay, I hope that, after today—I note that the education secretary will make a statement this afternoon—attention can rightly turn to victims and survivors and the work that we all need to do together to protect our children.
To start with your final point, given the importance that you place on victims, how did you feel when you received the email from Taylor’s mum yesterday, as we all did, in which she said that victims do not have any confidence in you any more?
I always try very hard to be sensitive and compassionate and to take on board the views of all victims. I would never for a minute deny victims the opportunity to speak to their truth.
You will, of course, appreciate that, in this role and in my previous roles, I have engaged extensively with victims who have been traumatised by offences in relation to which people have been brought to justice or in relation to which justice has not been done. I recognise that victims always have a range of views. Many victims have told me that they are supportive of the work that I have done, particularly through the victims legislation. I engage extensively with victim survivors and, crucially, their families.
I am very sorry that Taylor and her mum feel the way that they do. It is not for me to deny or reinterpret in any way their views on me or on any other matter.
I am just wondering how you felt. The letter to all MSPs, including you, finished by saying:
“Please do the right thing and vote to remove Angela Constance from her position. This will give the many victims of this barbaric form of abuse some belief and trust in the process going forward.”
Are you worried that they will not have belief and trust in the process going forward if you remain in post?
I am very respectful of the views of the victims whose comments you have read out. It grieves me if I have done or said anything that causes distress to anyone, not least victims.
However, in my day-to-day work, I have had many hard conversations with victims, and some of those conversations have been challenging to me and to the Government. In the context of the challenge that victims give, some victims will also speak to the importance of the work that I and other Government ministers do.
Earlier this morning, Professor Alexis Jay told this committee that she would welcome the Official Report being corrected in a similar way to the minute of the meeting. Will you now do that, given that request from Professor Jay?
I can certainly look at if and how that can be done. I am conscious—
I can assist with that. The mechanism is to make a statement that is then included in the Official Report. That has been requested of you for some time. Professor Jay has now said at this committee that she would welcome that. Is that something that you will now commit to?
09:45
I will certainly consider that. If I may, I will perhaps explain my thinking at the time about why I did not adjust the Official Report. I will then address the point that you are making about the here and now.
At the time that I received Professor Jay’s letter, I did not, as we all know, correct the Official Report. Essentially, my view of the intervention that I made on Mr Kerr was that I was making a general debating point about the need to get on with the work.
Professor Jay said in her letter that she wanted her position to be clarified. She also said in her letter that the quote that I used was correct, but, of course, she added context to that. It was simply not clear to me how I would correct the Official Report and what I would put into it.
I am quite sure that I am not the only MSP who has ever had to correct the Official Report. I have done that in the past, although not often. Over a number of years, it is something that I have done. Normally, that has been because a quote was wrong, a word was wrong, names were wrong or figures were wrong. I was not sure how making such a correction would do justice to the clarification that Professor Jay was seeking.
I am also aware, as the committee will be aware, that how the matter was clarified and remedied via officials was put to Professor Jay, and that she was content with a clarification in the minutes of the national strategic group, which is an important group. The minutes are publicly available. That was a course of action that Professor Jay agreed to.
On the request that the convener has articulated and that Alexis Jay has spoken to this morning, I will look at that again and see how we can do that. My understanding is that there is a time limit for correcting the Official Report, but I can give you an undertaking that I will look at that.
Will we get a response to that quickly? If there is a time limit, there are procedures to suspend standing orders. The fact that the time limit has been exceeded is down to an interpretation by you and others that a correction was not required. If the person involved has said that they would welcome such a correction, I do not think that there should be a time bar on that.
I recognise that, convener. As I would with any committee, I will seek to give a speedy response.
In terms of that option, Professor Jay confirmed that she was given two options: a letter from you in response to her letter, which would not necessarily be public but could be released under freedom of information some time later, or corrections to the relevant minutes. Why did no Government civil servant or special adviser suggest or offer a correction to the Official Report? At any point, was it discussed by anyone in Government that you might need to correct the Official Report?
I cannot answer the specific nature of your question. Obviously, I have been a parliamentarian for a long time now, and I certainly considered that when I received Professor Jay’s letter. As is the norm with correspondence in relation to which further advice or information is required, I would routinely get such advice from officials. That would apply to any correspondence that was perhaps of a more sensitive nature.
Where did the Professor Jay quote come from? You said that it was from Radio 4, but were you listening to Radio 4 one day and you thought that it would be a helpful quote to use in the chamber? Was it in a box note provided by a special adviser or a civil servant? When you received it and decided to use it in the chamber, had any contact been made with Professor Jay to seek clarification to check that you would be using it in the correct context?
The quote was in a briefing note that I had. I do not know whether it was officials or special advisers who wrote it. Of course, there was a bill team that was supporting me with a large landmark piece of legislation. Any briefing pack is divided into the groupings for debate. There will be purpose and effect notes and additional information. The quote was in the information that I had to hand on the day.
Can your officials help us? Was it Government officials or political special advisers who inserted that note?
I am not sure that my officials will be able to answer that.
I was not part of the bill team for that piece of legislation, but, as Ms Constance has said, in the advice that is given to ministers, there would routinely be a clustering of material on individual amendments, and a briefing would be provided in the normal way. It is routine practice for officials to provide ministers with quotes or pieces of expert advice about individual topics that might come up in the bill. It would probably have come from an official briefing that would have been provided in the routine way.
Could we perhaps get clarity on that, if you are able to provide it after this meeting?
Before we move on to questions from other members, Professor Jay mentioned a call that she had with you, and I think that that is what you were alluding to when you mentioned the apology that you made to her about her name being brought into this. Is that the private call between yourself and Professor Jay that you requested on 27 November?
Yes. I had asked to make a private call to Professor Jay. I did so. I thanked her for taking the call, because I requested it. It was entirely up to Professor Jay whether she accepted the call. At the time, I was strongly of the view that I owed Professor Jay a professional apology, because—this is a reflection; it is most certainly not a deflection—it always grieves me when experts and professionals who have spent their working lives protecting our children become involved in a political debate or dispute.
I could only imagine—it would not take a genius to work it out—that there would be a level of inconvenience to and intrusion on Alexis Jay. I wanted to express that to her, to make a personal and direct apology to her, and to say that I recognised, understood and accepted her position. I had my own position, which I briefly stated to her—I did not labour it—which was that I would have to continue to answer questions about my position on the matter. In no way did I do anything to undermine her views on the matter.
Were you calling as an individual member of the Scottish Parliament or as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs?
I was calling as an individual. I am not quite sure—
But the call was about quotes that you had given as cabinet secretary.
It was in relation to quotes that I had given as cabinet secretary.
So you were calling as the cabinet secretary.
Yes.
Which officials were on the call?
There were no officials on the call. It was a private call.
It was a call between you and Alexis Jay only—
Yes, it was.
—on Government business. You have just confirmed that you were calling as the Cabinet Secretary for—
As you say, I was calling as a result of comments that I had made as cabinet secretary. I wrote up a note, and I have provided that to my office.
When did you write up that note?
I wrote it up that day, and I would have sent it to the office either that day or the next day. I would have to check.
Why is that not shared in the freedom of information response?
I do not know, Mr Ross. I do not actually know what information you asked for in the freedom of information request.
It was not my freedom of information request.
Okay. Well, forgive me.
Interestingly, I asked a question in Parliament and was provided with that detail.
Are you aware of paragraph 8.13 of the ministerial code?
I am aware of the ministerial code.
And paragraph 8.13?
I do not have it in front of me.
It says:
“A Government official should be present for all discussions relating to Government business.”
Why was a Government official not present for that call?
Because I had asked to make a private call.
Based on what I have just read out, do you think that that could be a breach of the ministerial code? I am not asking you to judge whether you breached the code but, on the basis of that alone, could that be something that needs to be investigated?
I do not think so. No, I do not.
Unless I am reading it wrong, it says:
“A Government official should be present for all discussions relating to Government business.”
You have confirmed that it was Government business, because you were contacting Professor Jay as the cabinet secretary—
I had contacted her about—
I am sorry; I want to finish this point.
Forgive me.
You had written up a note, so you knew that the call required to have a note of it written. Therefore, as a very experienced parliamentarian and Government minister, you would also have known that an official should have been on that call. Why did you not ask for an official to be on that call if you thought that it was so important that you had to write up a note of it immediately afterwards?
I am conscious that everything has to be on the record. As I said, I do not have the ministerial code in front of me. It was important to me to make a personal call and a personal apology to Alexis Jay. The call was, of course, about comments that I had made as the cabinet secretary in the chamber, and those comments are on the record. I am not aware of ministers being prohibited from making personal calls. It will, as ever, be for others to make any judgment about my actions, behaviour or comments.
Will you make that note available to the public and to the committee?
Of course.
Will you look into why it was not part of the freedom of information response? People were asking for all correspondence between Professor Alexis Jay and the Scottish Government. Given that the note was a read-out of a discussion between Professor Alexis Jay and you, it would, I presume, fall under the freedom of information request.
It was a note of a meeting as opposed to correspondence, although I do not want to get into semantics. If you or any other committee members have outstanding issues, I will ensure that a timeous response is provided.
Thank you.
I do not really get this. I have struggled to understand the motivation behind why you have done this. If you had said earlier what you have said today, the episode might have come to an end. Instead, there has been a constant reinterpretation of events, with different ministers saying different things. Even yesterday, the First Minister said something different from what you have said today. I do not understand why you were not clear from the very beginning. Why was that?
I think that my position and reasoning are clear, Mr Rennie. As I intimated in my opening remarks, I accept that there should have been an earlier intervention by me to ensure that all information that people were requesting was available. It is unsatisfactory that information that was requested has taken so long.
Why did the First Minister say what he said yesterday, which was different from what you have said today? Is it just that you have reflected on all of this overnight? When did you make the decision to say what you have said today?
I have had considerable time to reflect on all matters, as you would expect any minister to always reflect on their actions. The basis of my position has not changed—what I said was a correct quote and Professor Jay was seeking clarification. However, while my position on what I said and why I said it in the chamber has not changed, I do of course reflect greatly on how matters are handled. For me, as I said in my opening remarks, if information had been made available, people will always come to their own conclusions about matters.
10:00
Did you not advise the First Minister to say this yesterday? Why have you said it today? Why did you not say it yesterday or the previous week? I cannot believe that it has been decided overnight. You must have come to the conclusion earlier to be more up front about what happened and your regrets about the process.
I am conscious that, today, it is me who is at committee. We are all entitled to speak to events as we see them.
I think that it is clear from your reaction to the point that the convener made about your call with Alexis Jay that you know that it was a mistake and that you should have had an official on the call. It seems that a series of mistakes have occurred throughout this episode, and that is why people’s confidence in you has been shaken through this process. Do you understand that?
I am always very respectful of other people’s views, Mr Rennie, and I try my best to understand things from the perspectives of others, not least victims and witnesses.
That is not quite the same thing. You have to admit that there has been a series of errors. It is not just about the original one, which we can understand because, as you say, we all have to correct the record at different times. However, a series of mistakes were made following that, which even allowed the First Minister to say something different yesterday from what you have said today. That is what we are questioning.
I have made some additional remarks today—
They are contradictory to what was said yesterday.
I do not think that they are contradictory. I do not accept that.
Okay. Thank you.
Good morning. I would like to focus on Liam Kerr’s proposed amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. I have checked the Official Report and I note that his amendment, in effect, was not seeking to establish an inquiry. That is something that he said himself. He said that it
“would require the making of recommendations about how to prevent this most vicious and heinous of practices from occurring and about whether a full public inquiry should be commissioned.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 27.]
Is that your understanding of Mr Kerr’s amendment? Is that what you were speaking to?
As you say, when Mr Kerr spoke to amendments 30 to 32, he was reflective and he made some detailed remarks. He spoke to the work of the Casey review in England and Wales. I made the remark on the public record, in response to a subsequent supplementary to an urgent question that I was answering, that I regretted deeply that there had been a mischaracterisation of Mr Kerr’s amendments. As he acknowledged at the time, the effect of his amendments would not have been to establish a public inquiry into grooming gangs. I find it a wee bit ironic that, in a debate that is about accuracy, his amendments have been mischaracterised.
As we are talking about accuracy, I note that I am one of the MSPs who, after the vote, were named on social media by the Conservatives, who said that we had voted against a grooming gangs inquiry. That led to the MSPs who were named receiving a considerable amount of abuse online, and it also had serious consequences for others.
Has the issue become too politicised? Have we moved away from what we should be concentrating on, which is how we tackle child sexual abuse and protect children from harm?
The issue of a grooming inquiry has become extremely politicised. It is regrettable that others have mischaracterised what that vote in Parliament was about. I am aware that a piece of social media was circulated that listed MSPs and claimed that they had voted against a grooming inquiry, whereas the vote in Parliament on Mr Kerr’s amendment was never about a grooming inquiry, as Mr Kerr acknowledged. His amendment would have resulted in the victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland—although the member who moved the amendments did not support the establishment of such a commissioner—undertaking research that would have to be reported within three years. My focus was always on the work that we need to do right now.
I am aware that the people who did not support those amendments were listed and named in a social media clip or graphic and that some of the people on that list received quite extensive and disturbing online abuse as a result of that. What we say, whether in the chamber or online, always has consequences, given the toxic nature of our politics right now. Our focus should always be, first and foremost, on protecting children.
By way of contrast, I note that, in the open debate at stage 3, I challenged those people who were not supporting the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill about all the reforms that they were voting against—reforms that victims had campaigned for over many years—but under no circumstances did I ever gaslight any other member of the Parliament. That is because I have no wish to politicise issues of child protection. After Christmas, it will be almost 30 years since I started my training as a social worker, so this issue matters to me a lot.
Thank you. For clarity, I note that I spoke to Mr Kerr on that very issue in a private conversation.
Having listened to what you have said, cabinet secretary, I wonder whether you now regret using the Professor Jay quote, given that we know how this Parliament works and that people had probably decided which way they were going to vote? Given that this issue has been on-going for so long, do you now think that it was a mistake to intervene at that point using that quote?
The quote was accurate—
I am not doubting that.
—and, of course, Professor Jay exercises her right, which I absolutely respect, in providing additional context to it. She was seeking clarity—
My question is more about whether, in hindsight, you think that this situation could have been avoided.
I do not imagine that there is a parliamentarian in this place who does not look back at how they have expressed themselves. Could I have expressed myself differently? I am quite sure that I could have, but the quote was accurate.
Cabinet secretary, child abuse and the protection of children fall under the education portfolio, as does the national strategic group, as we spoke about earlier. As justice secretary, how do you see the overlap in Government between those two areas?
As Mr Kidd says, child protection is led by my colleagues in education. However, it is a cross-Government endeavour in the same way that we have a cross-Government mission to tackle child poverty, for example. Every minister has a responsibility for the protection of children, which cuts across justice, housing, education and transport, and that is not an exhaustive list.
For my part, in relation to justice, it is about the detection and disruption of behaviour. Police Scotland is currently looking at past and present cases of interest that relate to group-based abuse and the exploitation of children and vulnerable adults. That work is particularly important and it is something that I hold dear.
I am thinking off the top of my head, but it seems to me that education could lead strongly on the identification of children who are suffering child abuse, whereas, when it comes to having to deal with that going forward, justice will take precedence. Is that correct?
In the real world, the protection of our children is multidisciplinary, and there are joint investigations between police and social work. I led on child protection when I was the children’s minister a long time ago, and I had the ultimate responsibility for it when I was Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, which was also a long time ago.
I will ask Iona Colvin or Andrew Watson to speak to the work that officials do to ensure that we have the right focus, but I will give an example of the work that I am involved in now, as justice secretary. I chair the serious organised crime task force, which has looked at the work of one of Professor Jay’s reviews, which was on the criminal exploitation of children. I led on work with respect to that. Child protection sits with my colleagues in education, but I emphasise that we all have a responsibility towards it.
In the strategic group, which I co-chair with Detective Chief Superintendent Taylor, who is in charge of public protection for Police Scotland, we have representation from all the professions—from the police, the Crown Office, education, health and social work, as well as from all the main third sector national charities. Our approach is basically that it is everybody’s business, and we have been looking at the work across all those agencies in trying to get to the bottom of where we are on the issue in Scotland.
I will give a couple of other examples of the joint working that the cabinet secretary described. First, in relation to our governance around children and families services and outcomes, I chair a national leadership group that brings together leaders from across Scotland, which includes representatives from the police as part of its structure.
Secondly, there is the bairns’ hoose programme, which is a joint venture between education, health and justice that is designed to produce system-wide support for children. It brings in professionals from the police, social work, health and so on. As the cabinet secretary said, there is a system-wide effort, which is reflected in quite a bit of our policy and some of our governance as well.
As Mr Kidd mentioned victims and survivors, I invite George Adam to come in, as he wants to extend that line of questioning.
10:15
Good morning. Cabinet secretary, Iona Colvin said that she co-chairs the strategic group, and I note that Professor Alexis Jay will chair it from January. How do you see your role in ensuring that it delivers tangible improvements for victims and survivors, rather than remaining an advisory forum? What value will you bring to the group’s work at this stage?
You can see the value that work in justice brings to this if you look at, for example, online harms. We will have a debate in Parliament this afternoon on cybersecurity and the threats in that area. There are threats to the protection of children, but there are also other implications, for example for national security and our economy.
I have already spoken to the work of the serious organised crime task force. One strand of its work has been focused on the criminal exploitation of children. Practical guidance flowed from that work, as well as a change in the law, on which we worked with the United Kingdom Government. I can provide more detail on that if the committee is interested in it.
I also contend that the context of all of this is the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and the debate that took place on that. The significant reforms in that bill will now have to be implemented, particularly for child and adult survivors of sexual abuse. My focus was on delivering the sexual offences court to ensure that our justice system becomes more trauma informed and that it minimises the retraumatisation of victims and witnesses when they are going through the court process. That is part of the wider work to support and encourage victims to be able to have the confidence to come forward and report offences that have occurred, either recently or in the past. When I was Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, I attended the launch of Police Scotland’s national child abuse investigation unit.
You mentioned the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. Stage 3 of that bill, which happened a couple of months ago, was massive. I have been here for a long time, but an awful lot of amendments were lodged at that stage. The bill changes things dramatically—in the correct way—so as to support victims and those who are dealing with such issues.
In dealing with a bill of such magnitude, how did you get to a place where you could deal with all of that at the same time as engaging with the Opposition parties to ensure that you would get a good balance and be able to take the bill forward, given that this is a Parliament of minorities?
Throughout the bill process, there was extensive engagement with victims and victim support organisations. In fact, many of the reforms in the bill were the result of campaigns and endeavours by very brave victims who were able to speak about their experience publicly. Many victims and victim organisations campaigned for changes such as the abolition of the not proven verdict, the sexual offences court, independent legal representation as part of the court process, and the protection of victims of sexual offences from inappropriate or intrusive questions about their personal history—that is, the section 274 and 275 framework.
As you would expect, and as should be the norm, there was extensive engagement with members of Opposition parties. I endeavoured to build as much consensus as possible around the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, and it grieved me that Parliament was not unanimous on that bill. I had taken out some of the more controversial aspects of the bill with the intention—or hope—of building consensus.
The Government supported 20 Conservative amendments, 14 Liberal Democrat amendments, five Labour amendments and four Green amendments at stages 2 and 3, so there were extensive efforts in that regard. I am grateful to members for those amendments, and in particular to Jamie Greene for his amendments. Where amendments were not taken forward—again, I use Jamie Greene’s amendments as an example—they fed into, for example, the consultation on parole.
I have a final question—I have known you for a very long time, and I know the answer to this, but I want it on the record. As justice secretary, you meet victims and survivors all the time, and you spoke earlier about what you did out in the real world as a social worker before you came to the Parliament. How does that shape your approach when you go about your business as a Scottish Government minister?
I meet victims and survivors and their families very regularly. This week, I met families who had lost loved ones who had died in custody, in the care of the state. I am a great believer in people being able to express their truth and to speak truth to power.
However, I have often been frustrated by the pace of change. Inquiries into the fatality of a child, such as a child who has been abused—I go back to the Maria Colwell inquiry in 1973—will often have the same themes. My focus has always been on what I can do in the here and now by getting on with the job.
If I am guilty of anything, it is that I am very task focused. Over the years, I have learned that I need to focus on the substance—on the bigger issues, which are about getting change. The world around us moves quickly, sometimes for the wrong reasons, but it is often deeply frustrating when trying to get the world to move at pace for the right reasons, in order to make changes. I am always impatient to be getting on with the job.
Mr Adam mentioned the large number of amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We are told that child protection relates to the education portfolio—or, rather, that that has always been the case, but that certainly seems to have been clarified more recently.
Given that view, what discussions did you have with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills about Liam Kerr’s amendment, and what discussions took place between officials from the justice and home affairs directorate and those from the education directorate about that amendment?
While I would be—
Did you have any discussions?
Not that I recall. I will go back and check, but I do not recall—
Do you understand why that conflicts slightly with the position that child protection falls, as Mr Rennie alluded to, within the education secretary’s portfolio? Surely, if amendments are lodged to a bill, there will be such discussions. I am thinking of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Parliament—a number of cabinet secretaries and ministers came to discuss it at stage 2, because there are issues in that bill that affect different portfolios.
The Government is telling us that child protection is not under your remit but under Jenny Gilruth’s remit. However, you are telling us that, when an amendment about that issue is lodged, you do not discuss it with Jenny Gilruth and your officials do not discuss it with education officials.
I am not saying that. I am saying that I do not recall having any specific discussions with Jenny Gilruth about Mr Kerr’s amendment. I restate that the amendment was not about the establishment of a grooming gangs inquiry. Officials—and, in particular, a bill team—will, of course, seek information from other parts of the Government about the work that is going on. I was aware of some of the work that was going on—well, I was aware of all the work that was going on in justice and of some of the work in education. All the information was provided to me in briefings.
With regard to which amendments are to be discussed in the chamber, that is not my, or the Government’s, decision—
It is a Cabinet decision—
—but it is important that we are clear about what the amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill were about—
Sorry, did you just say that it is not a Government decision?
In terms of—
The vote is obviously not, but whether the Government supports an amendment is a Government decision.
Yes, that is a Government decision. I was talking about when Opposition members lodge amendments to a bill. As a hypothetical example, I might look at an amendment and say, “Well, that’s got nothing to do with this bill—that’s not the bill’s purpose”, but which amendments are accepted for debate, either at stage 2 or at stage 3, is not my decision.
Indeed. Do you recall any discussion with education officials about that particular amendment?
As I said, I was not personally involved in the bill process, but I can confirm that, absolutely, there would have been discussion between the different portfolios with an interest in the bill—
Education officials definitely discussed amendment 32 in the name of Liam Kerr.
Yes.
How do you know that if you were not involved?
Because I run a large part of the Government, and it is teams in my area that would have been doing that, so I do know.
Can you tell us what their involvement or input was?
They would have given advice in that regard. As the cabinet secretary said, the particular amendment in question was about the commissioner role. As an example, my area has a strong interest in the role of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and how that office would interact with this sort of issue. That is an example of the type of thing that would be discussed.
Could you share that with the committee?
I do not know what that information looks like, but I am happy to look at that.
Thank you.
First, I echo Jackie Dunbar’s point about the irony of having a conversation about potentially misleading comments when, within minutes of the vote on Liam Kerr’s amendment, the Conservatives put out a graphic that not only was deeply misleading but has undermined the safety of dozens of individuals about whom they have made false claims. We need to have a serious conversation, ahead of the election, about how the parties in the Parliament conduct themselves and the impact that that has on colleagues.
Cabinet secretary, a minute ago, you mentioned your frustration at the pace of change, which is a frustration that we probably all share. One of my concerns about this process is that, although it is essential that there is a review and data gathering, and a public inquiry might potentially come about, that will involve years of work before any potential actions or recommendations come out of it. There is a need to support survivors and do more right now to prevent what they have experienced from happening again.
One provision that was agreed to as part of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill—I cannot remember whether it was included in an amendment or in the original bill—was about independent legal representation for survivors of sexual abuse. Can you give us an update on when you expect that provision to be enacted and that support to be available? My understanding is that that will cover survivors of grooming gangs.
As I mentioned in the chamber yesterday, the wider issues that we are experiencing with access to legal aid very much have an impact on survivors of such crimes, because they tend to be disproportionately care experienced and on lower incomes and would therefore be in need of legal aid. Can you provide any update on when that provision will be enacted?
10:30
There are two strands to that work. We have committed resource, and committed to a timeline, with regard to the provision of independent legal advice. That is different from the provision for independent legal representation in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill that I spoke about earlier, which is specific to the rape shield provisions in the bill. That relates to what happens when lawyers are contesting what evidence should be led about an individual, particularly if it concerns private and personal information belonging to a complainer in a sexual crime. The individual’s voice was absent from that process, and they were not represented—everybody else was there, with their lawyers, but their voice was not represented.
Independent legal advice is a bit different from independent legal representation—
Sorry, to draw on what you said, that representation is very narrow in that it relates to the rape shield. When are we expecting the enactment of the bill’s provisions on that?
That will be one of the earlier pieces of work with which we will proceed. I would have to get back to you on that, but it will be one of the earliest.
The first provision in the bill to be enacted will be the abolition of the not proven verdict. Work on that is being led in collaboration with the Emma Ritch law clinic, for example, which we fund. Work has been produced on the best model to support independent legal representation. I have made a commitment to the Criminal Justice Committee, and therefore to the Parliament, about a pilot for independent legal advice, which is about supporting victims, survivors and complainers earlier in the process so that they can access advice from a King’s counsel, for example, about what to expect in court proceedings. We will be advancing that work next year—there are timelines associated with that, and I will write to the committee about that, but they are in the next calendar year.
That is much appreciated. I recognise that you would not normally write to this committee about that, but I think that it would be valuable, given the increasing overlap with grooming gangs and child protection.
On the broader point, I mentioned yesterday the legal aid challenges and the fact that it is simply not available in large parts of the country because of the lack of solicitors. Does the Government still intend to bring something forward in that regard before the end of the current session of Parliament? I think that there are about 10 sitting weeks left.
Legal aid is in need of reform—I am not going to demur from expressing that view for one second. The legal aid budget is demand led, so, if people are currently entitled to legal aid, the cost of that must be met. In comparison with other jurisdictions, we have a generous system in Scotland.
Siobhian Brown is progressing some statutory instruments that will help to move the situation on. However, there is a broader case for reform, bearing in mind that legal aid is a public service and needs to be more user friendly for both citizens and solicitors. Although access to solicitors generally works well, I am acutely aware that in particular geographical areas of the country, such as Orkney, West Lothian and Perth and Kinross, along with some other areas, there have been difficulties in accessing a solicitor. There is also the issue of specialisms.
The work that is being done to support the legal profession is important in that regard. There is work on-going that will help, but I would not demur from the view that there is a bigger case for reform.
As you say, legal aid is a demand-led service. I hope and expect that, as a result of the wider debate that we are now having, more survivors of grooming gangs and child sexual abuse may well come forward, and that will be one of many factors contributing to an increase in demand for legal aid.
I hope that what Siobhian Brown is bringing to the Parliament will provide some kind of interim relief. However, from what you are saying, it sounds as though there is a commitment—if I am overinterpreting, you can correct me—that, depending on the result of the election, you would intend to undertake wholesale or substantive reform of the system in the next session of Parliament. We are talking about a couple of small interim measures that Siobhian Brown will bring forward, but that is all that we should expect before the election.
We are taking steps—I am trying not to get into the technicalities of legal aid or the statutory instruments, but I am happy to provide further information—to address what can be addressed in the time that is available in this parliamentary session, but I acknowledge that there is a bigger case for reform.
I want to come back to the data issue. This question is probably for Iona Colvin. You probably heard the earlier questions to Alexis Jay regarding the current outlook on data collection. That was an important part of the earlier evidence session, and the committee has talked about it previously. What are your thoughts on the situation with data collection previously and where we go from here?
It is complicated, as I think Professor Jay said. We know that we have an issue—we are clear about that. The national strategic group has been looking at data collection in some detail, and the chief statistician has been leading work, supported by staff from CELCIS, who are specialists in child protection.
It is clear, from looking at the number of adults who are survivors of sexual abuse and the number of those who are being prosecuted for sexual abuse, that there is a discrepancy between those numbers and what we see when we look into the child protection system. In that system, something like 0.2 per cent of children are on the child protection register relating to child sexual abuse, and the figure is 2.2 per cent for those in the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration data. Therefore, we are quite clear that we have an issue.
We are trying to get to the bottom of what that is about, and there is work going on. Police Scotland is working with the United Kingdom Government and, in particular, with the National Crime Agency, as the cabinet secretary said, with regard to the police investigation.
We also have the data stream, which the chief statistician has been looking at with the support of CELCIS. We know that there are issues with definitions—I think that Professor Jay referred to that—and consistency. I hope that, as part of the work of the national review, the inspectorates will uncover some of those discrepancies and allow us to look at what we need to do to bring consistency and uncover what is going on.
Police Scotland would say that it can only investigate what is reported to it. We know that a lot of people are not coming forward. Professor Jay is the expert on supporting survivors through the work that she has done regarding truth projects, and she mentioned the workforce issues that we have. It is really important that we get to the bottom of what is going on. We know that we have an issue and that Police Scotland is going through everything that it knows about. We also need to help local areas to look at what they are doing and whether things are being missed.
Can you say a little bit more about local areas? That is one of the key things, in my view. If we are talking about taking a local approach, there will be slightly different aspects and different agencies involved. There will be the national agencies, but there will also be local agencies. Can you say a bit more about how you break down the local aspect?
Yes. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills will make a statement later on some of the work that is going on with the inspectorates. We have asked all four inspectorates to be involved because they all have different roles. Police Scotland obviously has a role in the investigation, but the education and health agencies have a role in identifying early indicators that something is wrong—for example, when children start to go missing from school or do not turn up for health appointments. We need to look across the system.
The group has been clear that its work is not just about what we need to learn from the past, although we absolutely need to do that, and survivors need to have their justice and their day in court. That is a big issue, and we need to learn from what has happened to them. However, we also need to think about whether we are fit for now and about what we need to do to meet future challenges. The cabinet secretary mentioned the online challenge, for example, which we think will have a significant impact on child protection, so we need to get on top of it.
Cabinet secretary, I gather that you were at another committee earlier, so you might have missed my question to Professor Jay. I will ask you a similar question, based on the fact that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has recently been looking at public inquiries and their cost effectiveness, given that some inquiries take an extremely long time and cost a lot of money. You said earlier today that you are keen on pace of change.
First, will you explain how the whole process will work? There will be a review involving Professor Jay. Is there a timescale for the review? Is there a budget for it? Is one of the options that there might then be a public inquiry?
I will start, but I will ask my officials to come in on the detail of the review.
I am aware of the work that FPAC has done on public inquiries. In my time as a minister, I have announced and established two public inquiries, and I know that there are times and occasions when we just cannot get away from the need for a public inquiry. I will not rehearse the history of why the Scottish child abuse inquiry was set up, but it is a decision that I will defend to the end of my days, irrespective of the inquiry’s length and cost. My view was shaped by my extensive engagement with many survivors of historical child abuse, not just while I was education secretary but in other aspects of my life, in particular as a social worker—
Forgive me for interrupting, cabinet secretary. I am with you on the view that having the public inquiry is worth while, but other countries are able to have much quicker public inquiries at a lower cost. For example, Sweden’s public inquiry on Covid finished in 2022 and cost £2 million. There seems to be a problem in the UK and Scotland in that, when we have a public inquiry, it goes on for ever and costs an absolute fortune.
There is a question of fairness and balance in that. Nobody is demurring from the view that it is necessary at times to have large-scale, independent, judge-led public inquiries. However, my view is that we should learn from other countries, or at least look at what other countries do, because I am conscious that justice delayed is justice denied, and of the point about pace.
It should never be our default position to go straight to a public inquiry. The point that we currently do not have enough information or data about the scale of group-based harms, or indeed other harms, to children, is well made, and I endorse it. I agree that there is much to learn from other countries. The way in which an inquiry’s terms of reference are drafted is important in ensuring that it has a focus, but we should always look at other ways to address the issues and meet the needs of victims, witnesses and survivors.
Turning to the timescale, I know that we will have a statement in the Parliament this afternoon, so I can ask the questions again then if you do not know the answers. What is the timescale for the review in which Professor Jay is involved? Is there a cost to it? At that point, would a decision be made about whether to hold a public inquiry?
10:45
Before I hand over to officials, I will briefly say that the purpose of all the work, whether it is the work that has been done with Police Scotland, the independent review by the various inspection bodies or the work of the national strategic group, is to give us a better understanding of the harms that are current and present to our children right here, right now, and of how that threat is evolving. Those inquiries might lead to further work and the establishment of a public inquiry, because we have an open mind and every option will be considered.
With regard to the detail of the review, Iona Colvin or Andrew Watson might want to start.
I can say a few things, although the committee will understand that I do not want to get too far ahead of the statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills this afternoon. There are a couple of key points to note on timescales and resources.
First, we have asked the four inspectorates to work together. They are independent of Government and it is for them to set out how they want to achieve the work that will be undertaken. I would expect that to involve a bit of a balance between repurposing existing resources and looking at their existing work programmes and at what additional capacity they might need. The cost of the work will depend on balancing judgments about the operational capacity of the four bodies.
It is important to say that our expectation is that the inspectorates would not leave everything to the end of the process. It will be more of a phased approach, in which we might get updates at key stages, key milestones and so on. On how that might work, there would be a process of gathering data and evidence and a process of engaging with local authorities and other partners. The material that is gathered would need to be scrutinised and analysed, and the review group would then need to come up with recommendations or whatever.
There is an opportunity to have key milestones along the way, rather than having a single date in the future when everything will be completed and a decision could be taken about particular questions, including whether there should be a public inquiry.
Another observation is that the Government and the Parliament can think about the inquiry at any time; the conclusion of the inspectorates’ work and the work programme of the national group is not the only determining factor in that type of decision. My expectation is that, along the way, the programme of work will produce quite a lot of useful information to guide policy making more generally and the continuing debate around an inquiry.
The inquiry in England, as I understand it, has—somewhat unusually—been given a time limit and a budget, of three years and £65 million. That model has not been used either in the UK or in Scotland in the past. Are you open to the idea that there should be a time limit on a public inquiry, if there was to be one, and a budget limit?
That would be for ministers—it would not be for me, individually, to make a decision on whether there was a public inquiry in and around grooming gangs. That decision would be of a cross-Government nature.
Under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is the current legislation, there is an obligation on the chair of an inquiry to be mindful of cost—I cannot remember the exact wording, but there are some obligations put on the chair in that regard.
The wording is that they have to “avoid any unnecessary cost”, but that can mean anything.
Yes—you have done an inquiry into inquiries, Mr Mason, but I go back to the point about terms of reference. The terms of reference are important in ensuring a specific focus. They need to have enough flexibility because the chair is independent and we want them to be able to follow the evidence. There are some constraints under the current legislation, and I am sure that all colleagues will be looking at FPAC’s work with interest.
We will return to this, but earlier you mentioned judge-led inquiries. I think that, to date, every inquiry in Scotland has been led by a judge, but that is not the case in England or in other countries, where, sometimes, a specialist in a particular area can lead an inquiry. Have you any thoughts on that? Every time that we take a judge out of the legal system, the court cases all pile up.
You almost took the words out of my mouth, Mr Mason. We do not have many High Court judges in Scotland. Other legal jurisdictions are very different in that they are flatter; some European jurisdictions have many more judges per head. We do not have many judges in Scotland, so there is a pressure if too many judges are removed from their day-to-day work.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will return to some of the points that were raised previously, not least by Willie Rennie, about the sequence of events and how we have got to this point, and—I think that it is fair to say—about your own hindsight.
It is important to note that Alexis Jay had to ask twice for clarification. Reflecting on that, do you regret that that had to happen twice to get to a point where there was clarity?
I do. As far as I was concerned, the professor had asked for clarity and that should have been resolved at the earliest opportunity, although my understanding remains that Professor Jay agreed to the course of the remedy: that her clarification would be minuted in a record that is publicly available. Those minutes were published on 18 November, and there was an urgent question in the chamber on 19 November, so the information was made very public.
As I have said, however, all the information and all the correspondence should have been made available at an earlier stage.
Given the amount of time and the considerable amount of work that has had to go into the process of trying to get to the point of clarity, or further clarity, do you think that it has been a good use of time? For example, the chief social work adviser has had to spend time being the conduit between you and Professor Jay at various points.
That is not a position that I would have wished for.
Okay—that is helpful.
I will turn to some of the points that I put to Professor Jay about where we are now and how we move forward, because I think that everybody would want to see work being done at pace; we have heard about that in some of the exchanges this morning.
Do you recognise that we now have a number of overlapping pieces of work? There is the child abuse public inquiry, which has been on-going for 10 years; I acknowledge your comments on that. We have a national review comprising four Government agencies: HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, the Care Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Education in Scotland and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. On Monday, a lack of clarity was reported among those agencies about how they were going to be involved and what the terms of reference would be. That review will then, as I understand it, be reviewed by Professor Jay.
We have had a call for a further overarching review, which is not what the strategic review group is about. With regard to Government involvement in all this, we have had questions being answered in the chamber by the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise; we have had answers from you; and we have heard from—and will hear from this afternoon—the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.
Do you recognise why victims feel confused, at best, about who is responsible for getting to the heart of many of the issues? Do you recognise what Professor Jay said about that confusion?
I am confident that I have always said, and tried to convey, that, at the end of the day, we are all responsible: we all have—each and every minister has—a shared responsibility. In my view, it is clear where responsibility for particular aspects lies.
For MSPs and Opposition spokespersons, that information is on the Government website, and it is part of their role to understand which specific responsibilities lie with specific ministers. However, I accept that members of the public, and in particular victims and survivors, ultimately just want us all to get on with it: to make things better, deliver justice and take the necessary action to prevent harms in the future. A lot of what is our business, in legitimately scrutinising who does what, will be inconsequential for the people who are at the sharp end of these real-life issues.
With regard to answering questions, I have answered urgent questions when they have been lodged with a specific justice focus. Members ask supplementary questions at portfolio question time that might or might not cross over into other ministers’ portfolios. That is fine, and all ministers do our best to answer such questions.
It is key to stress the important nature of the national review. I have a high regard for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland; I have been in post now for two and a half years, and I am aware of the rigour of the inspections that take place. With regard to the landscape and how things will work between the national strategic group and the national review and Alexis Jay, I will defer to my officials.
To be clear, the inspectorates have been involved in developing the proposal for a national review, so I am not sure—
With respect, Ms Colvin, I am not sure why there were press statements on Monday—
No, neither am I.
So you are not clear why the inspectorates said that.
No. All that I am saying is that they have been involved all along. The original discussion came from a discussion between me and Professor Jay about how we triangulate evidence and data. She is the expert and she has done that kind of work several times over. We have a police investigation running, so how do we triangulate evidence? Professor Jay has also been involved, as an expert adviser, in the development of the proposal. The inspectorates are independent; they report to the Parliament and they guard their independence fiercely, because they have to. However, in this instance—as my colleague Andrew Watson said—they have committed to providing on-going reports around the process so that we can look at making a decision on whether an inquiry is needed. At any point, ministers could decide that an inquiry is needed.
Professor Jay will chair the child sexual abuse and exploitation group, and she will have a view over everything that is going on.
It is clear from that exchange that there is confusion, and I am sure that the committee will want to return to the agencies to understand exactly their view of the comments that they made on Monday.
To return to the cabinet secretary’s answer, I think that part of the problem is that, if something is everyone’s responsibility, it can sometimes become nobody’s responsibility, to some extent. I think that that is what victims are expressing.
Cabinet secretary, can you reflect on whether an independent review, chaired by someone like Alexis Jay, would be the appropriate way to show that there is someone who is leading? Alexis Jay, in her comments to me this morning, said that she is not leading the review group. What is the view on whether we need an independent review with clear independent leadership?
I can take that back to colleagues to reflect on it. With the greatest respect, I am not going to develop policy or interventions on the hoof in committee, and without engaging with colleagues, in particular with those colleagues who lead on much of this work. I accept that there is always a risk that shared responsibility can mean diluted responsibility, but I do not believe that that is the case in either justice or education. We work closely together; we have distinct roles in all of this, and I am very clear about those roles, as are Ms Gilruth and other colleagues, but we work together on it.
George Adam and Jackie Dunbar on this committee, as well as the First Minister and others, have referred to your career in social work, and you have referred to it this morning yourself—in particular, the 30 years that have passed since it started. There are obviously standards, values and principles for social workers that you will recognise: being accountable, taking responsibility and
“I must uphold public trust and confidence.”
You will have carried those values into the role that you currently hold. Do you feel that you have upheld those values and principles in this episode?
11:00
I do, Mr O’Kane. Have I been flawless? No. Have I had cause to reflect, with the benefit of hindsight? Yes. Over the course of my decade as a social worker and during my time as a parliamentarian, I have never shied away from discussing or confronting some of the most difficult topics and issues in our society.
Good morning. On the issue of private calls, on how many occasions do you request or undertake private calls on Government business, without a Government official present?
It is not something that I have been in the practice of doing, but—
So was this a one-off?
Yes.
I wrote down earlier that the reason you have not corrected the Parliament’s Official Report is that you could not think of an appropriate wording for that clarification.
I have a lot of respect for you, cabinet secretary. We represent the same region. I do not think that it is credible that we have not seen the Official Report corrected. I find this whole saga unbelievable; it is unbelievable that that is still not the case.
Would you agree with that? Given that you have all your officials, advisers and party advisers, why have we got to this point at which the Official Report has not been corrected and the matter has not been cleared up?
I am respectful of your position, Mr Briggs, although I point out that I am not a regional MSP; I am the MSP for Almond Valley—a constituency MSP.
I genuinely looked at the professor’s letter, which said that the quote was accurate and that she wanted clarification. Clearly, I wanted the matter addressed, but not to my satisfaction; I wanted it addressed to the professor’s satisfaction.
Officials liaised with the professor and discussed with her the course of action that she wanted to take. I was content with that. Under no circumstances was that a process that I was going to interfere with.
The minutes of that important strategic group are very public. Clearly, they are scrutinised and read—as they should be.
Professor Jay said this morning that she wanted the cabinet secretary to ensure an accessible clarification of her views. For parliamentarians, that would be our Official Report, and the cabinet secretary would know that throughout her time in Parliament. I just do not understand why that clarification has not happened, and I think that it should have happened.
The former First Minister Alex Salmond referred himself to the Scottish Government’s independent advisory body on the ministerial code. Has the cabinet secretary considered doing that herself—rather than the First Minister having to do that?
No, I have not considered that. I would hope that, as politicians, we would all have the humility to recognise that our fate does not always rest in our hands. At times, it can rest in that of others. That is my philosophy and approach.
One of my greatest concerns has involved the victims and families who have been emailing us throughout the situation. I read Taylor’s mum’s letter last night and again this morning, saying that they feel that
“there has been a cover-up and closing of ranks.”
The UK Government has dragged its feet on an inquiry, although it has now announced one. It feels like the Scottish Government has been in the same space of not stepping up and holding a public inquiry. What do you, personally, think that your handling of the situation has done to provide victims with reassurance and confidence that the Government is going to get to the bottom of the matter?
Given the concerns that have been raised over the destruction and loss of vital evidence, the longer the situation goes on and the longer the Government does not put in place a grooming inquiry, things can only get worse, and evidence can only be getting destroyed. We have heard telling evidence this morning from Professor Jay over the burning of evidence—literally—taking place.
We cannot have any destroying of evidence. If there is any evidence of that occurring now in relation to the matters that we are currently debating and wrestling with, that would be utterly unacceptable. I am quite sure that there would be criminality as well as professional misconduct associated with that.
I will ask officials to respond, too, but I recall from previous work that instructions can be given prior to an inquiry to make it crystal clear that there should be no destruction of any evidence.
Has that gone to all public bodies ahead of any decision over an inquiry?
In terms of right now?
Yes.
I do not know. I do not know whether officials know.
There were two things there. The cabinet secretary is referring partly to the instructions that the child abuse inquiry would have put out, when it was established, to public authorities around future access to information.
On the work of the inspectorates, we are very likely to put out something in that regard.
The cabinet secretary did not answer my question. Cabinet secretary, what do you think the whole situation has done to the confidence of victims and their families that they will get answers? Many of the emails that we have received have been from people whose loved ones have committed suicide. It is their families who are now trying to get justice for them.
I have read the correspondence that Mr Briggs refers to. I am not deaf, blind or insensitive to that. As I said earlier, it is for every victim and survivor to speak to their own experience. I do not want to comment too much about what particular victims express, as I would not want anything that I said, in any shape or form, to undermine their right to express their experiences and trauma in the way that they see fit.
I have contact with many victims and survivors. Many will express to me their support for the work that the Government is doing, whether that is work that I have led individually or work done elsewhere in Government. Many victims and survivors make changes because they have the courage to come forward. I am conscious that they do so because they want to prevent the same thing from happening to other people.
Something that I reflect on carefully, and that I am particularly careful with as a minister, is that we should not have to rely on witnesses and victims coming forward to provide their testimony to make changes. It feels to me that a double burden is often put on them: the burden of their trauma and what they have experienced, and the burden of feeling that they must come forward to make changes. That is what I want to work on and address, such that the system and every part of the system is self-improving, and so that we do not have to rely on victims and witnesses being retraumatised and feeling that they have to share their experiences.
Paul O’Kane wishes to make a clarification.
This was remiss of me but, perhaps due to the early start of the meeting, I did not declare earlier that my husband is a practising social worker.
I have a couple of points to conclude this evidence session. In your opening statement or in answer to an early question you reflected on Liam Kerr’s urgent question on 19 November and you said that, in hindsight, you should have provided the correspondence that he was looking for then. Why did it take three more weeks for that to come out through FOI? There were other opportunities, such as answering an urgent question from Meghan Gallacher. Indeed, I had an urgent question on the same day that the Government released the information.
If you reflected that you should have done that when that was called for on 19 November, why did you not do it then?
I suppose because, as with any reflection, it is not necessarily about a point in time; there is a process and an evolution of particular thoughts and feelings about the matter.
Was that reflection after the information was in the public domain? I took it from what you were saying that you were away on Government business, you heard what Liam Kerr was asking for and you thought, “Maybe I should just give this information.” You never did, however, and the information was released only on 10 December.
No—I am talking about what I could have done differently on reflection and with hindsight, when I consider the matter in its entirety. I cannot remember which member said this, and I may be paraphrasing, but they were talking about what I would or should have done differently. Clearly, if I had not been away from Parliament on Government business I would have answered that question.
Really? We were told that it was Natalie Don-Innes because the matter lies in the education portfolio. If you did not answer the question on 19 November, do you think that you should have answered Meghan Gallacher’s question on 26 November?
No—
Okay.
No, because—
I am just asking.
Without getting into the weeds of all this, I answered an urgent question from Ash Regan because it was specifically hooked into justice. Her question was essentially around the identification and disruption of networks that abuse people, on the back of a high-profile case that had been sentenced.
I suppose what I am saying is that, if I had been available, I would have answered Mr Kerr’s question—
Because it was about the correspondence—
Because it was about me. I would have owned it. If I had been available, I would have owned that.
On the matter of how subsequent questions were drafted, I accept that people go on to ask supplementaries, but they clearly sat elsewhere.
If you are saying that you would have answered Liam Kerr’s question because it was about your correspondence with Alexis Jay and you were involved, why, then, were you not the minister to answer my urgent question, which was seeking the release of the correspondence between the Scottish Government and Alexis Jay? If your rationale is that, if you were not away on Government business, you should have answered Liam Kerr’s question, why not answer the question last week?
I will check the record, but my recollection was that your urgent question followed an exchange with Ms Don, in which a commitment had been given to you to correspond.
I can reflect, and have reflected, on all those matters. The point that I want to relay is that I am not one to shy away from talking about difficult or uncomfortable issues.
I found it a bit difficult and uncomfortable to listen to your rationale for not correcting the Official Report. I am still puzzled to understand how you, as an experienced parliamentarian, and indeed a large number of independent civil servants and party special advisers, did not think of reaching for the Official Report mechanism.
It is not difficult. Five clicks from the Scotland Parliament’s home page is a web page that is available not just to MSPs and your advisers but to the entire public. It says:
“If a member realises after an item of business has ended that a significant error has been made—for example, one which may affect the conclusions which listeners would draw from the debate—the member may ask to make a statement during the next available plenary session”.
I would have thought that anyone receiving Alexis Jay’s original correspondence to you on 26 September would have thought that paragraph 5 of the guidance for the correction of parliamentary proceedings answers her request perfectly. That is not hidden away; it is five clicks away from the Scottish Parliament’s home page to find out the mechanism for correcting the Official Report. Why did you not do that?
11:15
I can only answer for myself but, as I have said, my thinking when I read that letter was that it said that the quote was correct, but the professor wanted clarification. When I looked at the Official Report I was very clear about what I did not say, so I therefore did not seek to amend the record.
Do you accept that the wording,
“for example, one which may affect the conclusions which listeners would draw from the debate”,
chimes with what Professor Alexis Jay was asking you to correct?
I accept that different people will have a different interpretation of what I said.
But with reference to Professor Jay saying to you that she would like her remarks clarified, the Scottish Parliament’s web page says that you can do that, for example, if what has been said
“may affect the conclusions which listeners would draw from the debate”.
Professor Jay was worried about
“the conclusions which listeners would draw from the debate”.
Therefore, there was a perfect opportunity to correct the Official Report.
I said to you at the start of the meeting that I would reflect on whether and how we could do that. I have stated my position a number of times.
Was it a mistake not to offer a correction to the Official Report to Professor Jay?
My only concern in this was that matters were clarified to the satisfaction of the professor. That was my only concern.
So, given that she is now asking for the Official Report, if possible—
We will look at that.
Today?
I will look at that as quickly as possible.
You have said that you are not in the practice of making private calls for Government business. Did you say that you think that the time that we are discussing was the only time that you have ever done that?
I think so. I am having to stretch back over a number of years.
I know—it is a long ministerial career.
It is the only time that I recall.
Given that incident—which I deem to be a breach of the ministerial code—and given this whole episode, would you have any concerns if the First Minister asked his independent adviser to look into the matter, or if the independent adviser on the ministerial code themselves decided to look into it?
As I said earlier, I think in response to Mr Briggs, there will be other people who will make decisions, whether it is the First Minister or independent advisers. I would not want to say or do anything that would seek to influence that, one way or the other.
But would you welcome the clarity that any investigation would bring? Would you have any concerns?
No.
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, and thanks to your officials. I appreciate your time today.
11:18 Meeting suspended.Air ais
InterestsAir adhart
Cross-portfolio Session