The next item of business is a statement by Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
15:43
Thank you for the opportunity to make this statement today.
On 16 September last year, during stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, I made remarks that referenced the position of Professor Alexis Jay. What I said during that debate has been the subject of significant scrutiny, and the First Minister’s independent advisers on the ministerial code made it known on 22 December that they would independently investigate this matter. They have now delivered their conclusions to the First Minister. Their report has been published, but I will outline briefly the conclusions, which are that I made two breaches of the ministerial code, which were unintentional and
“inadvertence without any deliberation or intention to mislead”.
The advisers also said:
“That is at the lower end of the spectrum provided for in the Code and therefore does not call for anything beyond a reprove which should be formal and in writing accompanied by a statement to Parliament by Ms Constance to clarify the words used and thereby add to the Official Record.”
I fully accept the independent advisers’ report and sanctions. I received the reproval from the First Minister, which I of course accept, and I apologise to him. In addition, I am providing this statement as quickly as possible—I thank the Parliamentary Bureau for agreeing to that—to inform the Parliament and to carry out the advisers’ recommendation that I clarify the words that I used and ensure that that clarification is therefore in the Official Report.
During stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, Liam Kerr lodged amendments that sought to add research on child sexual abuse and exploitation to the remit of the victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland and to require the commissioner to provide a report to the Parliament within three years.
During the debate on those amendments, I intervened in relation to the discussion on data. As is now well known, I made the following remarks:
“It is important that we get the right type of data, and that work is of course under way.
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’.
I contend that that is what the Scottish Government is doing right here, right now—we are getting on with the work that we need to do to protect children.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 31.]
Professor Jay wrote to me on 26 September noting that I “correctly quoted” her but that her comments were in the context of a public inquiry in England and Wales, not Liam Kerr’s amendment. She also said that
“the Scottish Government should urgently take steps to establish reliable data”
and that she had already begun 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 take that clarification forward at the meeting of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group that was scheduled for 8 October. Professor Jay agreed to that route for clarification. The clarification was made at the meeting and the minutes were published on 18 November.
The independent advisers noted that my statement on 16 September
“was factually accurate in two respects”.
First, the quotations that I used were made by Professor Jay. Secondly, the quotations had been put on the record by Professor Jay during a Radio 4 broadcast in January 2025. In subsequent correspondence with officials that is in the public domain, Professor Jay agreed with the accuracy of the words that were used. However, the independent advisers reached the view that the context, content and detail of the debate were significant and that listeners might understand different things from the words used.
The independent advisers concluded that the phrase that I used when I said that Professor Jay “shares my views” had the potential to mislead Parliament and that the record of Parliament
“should have been corrected in the same terms used in the National Strategic Group minutes as soon as possible after Professor Jay communicated her views on 26 September.”
I therefore make clear that, during the debate on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in the Parliament on 16 September, I quoted the views of Professor Alexis Jay on calls for further inquiries into child sexual abuse. I clarify that Professor Jay shared those views in January 2025 in a radio interview in the context of her work on the independent inquiry in England and Wales and that they were not related to the debate on the victims bill or the position in Scotland.
The matter has been considered at length by the Parliament, including most recently in an evidence session of the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 17 December, at which Professor Jay and I both appeared.
Although those opportunities have resulted in Parliament being widely informed of the full context of Professor Jay’s remarks, to remove any suggestion of those being misrepresented and Parliament misled, I accept the conclusion of the independent advisers that I should have sought to make a statement. Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and to Parliament for not seeking to do so sooner.
The independent advisers also considered my phone call to Professor Jay on 1 December last year, in which I apologised to her. Although I took a note of that discussion, the independent advisers acknowledged that that was
“an error of judgement in the moment and not deliberate and in that sense inadvertent.”
They concluded that, in line with paragraph 8.13 of the ministerial code, the call
“should have been attended by an official”.
I accept that conclusion unreservedly.
Having made the statement to clarify matters, and making it clear that I accept the conclusions of the independent advisers on the ministerial code, I hope that we can now turn our focus to the work that we must do together.
I will finish by again saying that I fully accept the report of the independent advisers. I have always stated that I did not intend to mislead Parliament in any way in what was a long stage 3 debate on an important bill, in which we dealt with more than 170 amendments. I am pleased that the advisers have made it clear that my quoting of Professor Jay’s views was
“without any deliberation or intention to mislead.”
I hope that that addresses the matter in full and that we are all able to focus on how to effectively address and prevent the horrific and insidious criminality that is involved in the exploitation of children, and support victims.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak button.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.
On 18 December, John Swinney told me that he was
“content that there has been no breach of the ministerial code.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2025; c 11.]
Over many weeks, he repeatedly suggested that there was nothing to see here. John Swinney was wrong, because his discredited justice secretary, Angela Constance, breached the ministerial code—not just once but twice. I have been telling him that for weeks, but he put his Scottish National Party friend above the truth and above respect for Parliament and for grooming gang victims. We have those official findings today only because of the sustained efforts of many Scottish Conservative MSPs.
The first breach was that, having misrepresented the views of a leading expert on child sexual abuse, Angela Constance failed to correct the record. The independent advisers described that as a “significant error”.
The second breach was the failure to have officials present during an official Government phone call with Professor Jay. The saga has all the hallmarks of John Swinney’s Government: cover-up over candour and self-preservation over integrity.
Will Angela Constance tell Parliament whether she has offered her resignation to John Swinney? If he will not do the right thing and sack her, why will she not do the right thing and quit?
I am grateful to Mr Findlay for his questions and scrutiny. The strength of having independent advisers is that they undertake an independent process and have the freedom and right to come to their own conclusions. I repeat what I said in my statement: I accept the independent report by the independent advisers in its entirety, including their commentary and conclusions, and, today, I have sought to address the matters that they recommended that I take on board.
I have had time to reflect. As I have said before, the record could have and should have been corrected earlier and a statement to Parliament should have been made earlier. I am now making that statement to Parliament so that matters are now fully on the official record.
My final remark to Mr Findlay is that, for some people, walking away is always easier than being held to account. I would much rather take the harder road of being held to account and making amends and getting on with the job.
This has dragged on for 102 days because of the inability of Angela Constance and John Swinney to do the right thing and at the right time. Had Angela Constance put her hands up and said ,“I made a mistake,” this issue would have been done. Instead, John Swinney and Angela Constance put party before country and, even more shamefully, put party before victims of grooming gangs.
Independent advisers have now confirmed that Angela Constance breached the ministerial code not once, but twice. That investigation should have been triggered by John Swinney, but instead he followed the culture that he has created from the top—one of secrecy and cover-up and putting his party before country every single time. This is the man who tried to withhold evidence from the Salmond inquiry. He defended Michael Matheson over the matter of the iPad bill, and he did the same now with Angela Constance.
Does the justice secretary agree that the most important people in this are the victims and survivors of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation? She has the confidence of John Swinney and of her party, but she has lost the confidence of the victims and survivors of grooming gangs. On that basis, should she not resign?
The facts of the matter are now fully on the record, and they have been independently scrutinised. I appeared at the Education, Children and Young People Committee before Christmas and made an extensive statement there. I am here today before Parliament to account for the position and to accept in full the requirements of the independent report.
What I have always accepted is that there is no monopoly on wisdom, on endeavour or on commitment to victims of sexual abuse, whether they are adults or children.
Looking at my record in the round, which has included taking through one of the largest and most transformational victims bills in the history of devolution, I think that I can say with some confidence that I have made a contribution. It is a contribution that has made history, for example, through the abolition of the not proven verdict. It is a contribution that will make a difference, through the establishment of a sexual offences court. What we all need to do now, and I think that there is unanimity on this across Parliament, is to focus on our children and how best to protect them in an ever-changing world where the threat to our children, their wellbeing and their safety is ever evolving. I have never demurred or diverted my attention from that priority, and I never will.
I note that the report of the independent advisers on the ministerial code said that the two breaches of the ministerial code were unintentional and were
“inadvertence without any deliberation or intention to mislead.”
The sanction is a formal reprove and a statement “to clarify the words” for the official record. Does the cabinet secretary believe that her statement fulfils what is required of her now in relation to the advisers’ report on the issue?
Yes, I do. The report is very clear that the issue was “inadvertent error”. As I said before, it was never my intention to mislead Parliament in any way. The comment was one that I made during an intervention on one amendment out of 174 amendments that were under consideration that evening.
Nonetheless, I will not for a minute walk away from the importance of candour and openness with Parliament in these matters. I have always striven to demonstrate that in all aspects of my work. Have I had to make amends? Yes—that is what I hope that I am doing here today, and I will continue to do so through the work that I will lead in collaboration with other colleagues across Government.
I choose to believe that the cabinet secretary did not intend to mislead when she intervened on me in September. However, the failure to correct the record in the face of many colleagues and voices in civic Scotland highlighting the error was, I think she would acknowledge, a monumental error of judgment. It was disrespectful to Parliament and, worst of all, it was a shocking abdication of responsibility to the victims of this most abhorrent of crimes.
A straight, closed question begs a straight answer. Between 3 October and her appearance at the Education, Children and Young People Committee in December, was the cabinet secretary advised by anyone in her private office, by her special advisers and/or by the First Minister’s office to correct the parliamentary record?
I can say to Mr Kerr that I have had much to reflect on and, when it comes to regrets, I certainly have a few. My on-going commitment to Parliament is that I do not and will not abdicate any of my responsibilities. I will not repeat the evidence that I gave to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, as we now have the judgment of the independent advisers and their conclusions and recommendations.
Was I given advice? The answer is no. However, I do not want that to be misinterpreted. I am answering a straight question, because that is the challenge that has been put to me. What I do not demur from for one minute is what rests with me. I ain’t for a minute pointing the finger at spads, officials or anybody else. This may be of little interest or consolation to members of the Opposition but, at the end of the day, the biggest critic of me is me. This rests with me. Where action has to be taken and where there has to be accountability, that rests with me as a minister. That is what comes with being a minister. As I said to your colleague earlier, walking away is always the easy option, but standing up and being accountable for your actions is the harder road, and I will take the harder road each and every time.
Always speak through the chair, please.
The cabinet secretary breached the code in not having an official with her during the telephone call that she held with Alexis Jay on 1 December. Can she explain her intention behind that call?
As I said, the intention behind my call to Professor Jay was to apologise to her when the focus was on remarks that I had made in the chamber, as opposed to the substance of the very grave issues that we are all contending with. I was apologetic for any inconvenience or intrusion that she had had as a result of my actions, inactions or comments.
As a politician and a minister of some years’ standing, I have always valued independent experts and the role that they play, particularly experts such as Alexis Jay, who is a leader in her field and who has spent a career and a lifetime working to protect our children and improve measures to ensure that more of our children are safe. There is nothing more important to me and, I suspect, to the Parliament, than the protection of our children in this ever-changing world, where the harms are ever evolving.
What I regret, among many things, is any inconvenience to Professor Jay in any way. I very much regret the fact that she had to write to me in the first place to clarify her position. In the context of our society, where experts are often debased, I regret very much that my actions have brought an expert into the spotlight, when the spotlight should always be on politicians.
The justice secretary’s own words today are:
“the independent advisers have reached the view that the context, content and detail of the debate were significant and that listeners might understand different things from the words used.”
The words used misled MSPs and the public, but it is much worse than that, because they also serve to undermine confidence among victims. I ask the cabinet secretary how she will regain the victims’ confidence.
Taylor, a known victim, was on a list of 46 children that Police Scotland were worried were being sexually exploited. I still do not have answers about what has happened to the other 45 children. I ask the cabinet secretary what has happened to those children who we think might have been sexually exploited, and will the matter be a priority for response?
I repeat to Ms McNeill what I have said. I accept the independent report and all its conclusions and commentary in its entirety. Along with colleagues in education, those elsewhere in Government and Opposition members, I seek to play my part—a leading part—in addressing the concerns of victims across the length and breadth of Scotland. I have a track record in providing results to victims, having introduced one of the most significant landmark pieces of legislation that this Parliament has passed. I note that the bill that passed was not unanimously supported, and I accept that we will all see the mountain from different sides. However, my commitment to Ms McNeill and others is that I will continue to work collegiately across the Parliament in the best interests of Taylor and other victims.
Cabinet secretary, you have taken three major bills through the Parliament in the past year or so, including the landmark one that you have just referenced. Given that, combined with the numerous statements that you have given in Parliament, it is fair for us all to assume that you are familiar with the processes and have corrected the record. How are you normally made aware if there is a need to correct the parliamentary record, and were you advised to do so in this case?
I remind members of the requirement to speak through the chair.
In hindsight, I should have sought to correct the record earlier. At the time, I thought that the matter was dealt with. Yes, I have spoken a lot in committee and the Parliament in the past year. As I said, my remarks were used in an intervention as part of a two-day debate on what I and many victims consider to be a transformative bill.
There are a number of ways that matters can be drawn to members’ attention, depending on the issue. It can be done via officials or stakeholders. To be fair, it was a stakeholder in this instance, because it was Alexis Jay who first wrote to me on 26 September, and officials then corresponded with her and then advised me of the approach to clarification, which was agreed with Professor Jay at the time.
In the cabinet secretary’s statement, she expressed hope that we can now focus on how to address and prevent the horrific and insidious criminality that is involved in the exploitation of children and on supporting victims. Can the cabinet secretary tell us more about the Police Scotland review of historic child sexual abuse cases? What is it intended to achieve? Is it about how investigations were handled? Is it about identifying patterns? Is it about exploring other avenues of inquiry? How will that work integrate with that of the National Crime Agency?
I remind members of the issues that are raised in the statement. Cabinet secretary, can you respond with that in mind?
I will be delighted to follow up with Ms Chapman with more detail in writing. Police Scotland has a pivotal role in detecting and disrupting criminality. It has always been the case that Police Scotland co-operates with other police forces across the United Kingdom, particularly the National Crime Agency, which is a UK-wide organisation. When it is in Scotland, the National Crime Agency always makes the effort to engage directly with me.
The important point is about multi-agency collaboration, because Police Scotland will work on the national review collaboratively, whether that is with the Care Inspectorate, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, the Inspectorate of Education or Health Improvement Scotland. I have to stress that the issue requires a cross-Government, cross-society response.
This is the first day back after recess, and the Parliament is now notably distracted by two debates about the conduct of its members. The cabinet secretary knows fine well that it is what we say and the words that we use that matter, particularly to victims. In the vote of no confidence debate, we came to a very considered conclusion that the justice secretary’s position was untenable, and I am afraid to say that our position has not changed.
In the light of this now three-month-long saga, and in the cold light of day, following today’s report, does the cabinet secretary honestly—and I mean honestly—still believe that she commands the full confidence of the entirety of Scotland’s justice sector, including every victim of crime in this country?
Mr Greene is quite correct to say that what we say matters. However, what we do also matters. Along with support from Mr Greene, I passed the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was not without its controversy. I know the views of many victims. Of course, victims have different views about different politicians. Many victims have views about those who did not support the bill and those who did not vote to abolish the not proven verdict, despite their commitment to that. It is what we do that matters.
I accept that we will all come to this with different perspectives, as will victims, but I am confident that most people will look at my contribution, first and foremost, as a grafter—somebody who is prepared to wrestle with difficult issues and have difficult discussions. I think that most people will look at me in the round; I am perhaps imperfect but, first and foremost, they will take a balanced view of me and of what I contribute, as well as my failings.
I note that the independent advisers on the ministerial code said:
“The issue here is not about honesty or truthfulness. There is no evidence that Ms Constance knowingly misled Parliament nor was the statement inaccurate or untruthful.”
Professor Alexis Jay also said that the quote was accurate. Does it remain the case that the cabinet secretary had no intention of misleading Parliament when she made that statement during an intervention on Liam Kerr in relation to his amendment?
I emphasise to the Parliament that I take my responsibilities in this place extremely seriously, in the same way as I do in relation to the people I serve as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. I had absolutely no intention of giving the impression that Professor Jay was commenting on Liam Kerr’s amendment or of risking that impression forming. I do not want to repeat the evidence that I gave earlier, because what is important now is the view of the independent advisers. I accept their findings in relation to the significance of the debate and the substance, I accept that more could have been done explicitly earlier, and I accept the recourse that they have recommended that I take.
The cabinet secretary has acknowledged that this episode became about her conduct rather than the victims and survivors of grooming gangs. Given the damage that that has caused to trust in her Government, will she now apologise directly to those victims for allowing her actions to distract from their need for justice and protection?
I am sure that I am on record as saying—if I am not, let me say again today—that the last thing that I would ever want to do would be to add to the distress that victims and survivors have already experienced in their lives. I go back to the point that Mr Greene made, which all politicians should reflect on, which is that what we say matters. However, what also matters is what we do.
A great deal of distress has been caused to victims, and, as the cabinet secretary said, what we say matters. She now says that she accepts that she should have corrected the record. Does she accept that she should have come to the chamber with a simple apology a number of months ago, rather than going through these weeks of prevarication? Did she consider making such a statement to Parliament following the discussions with Professor Jay on 3 October about what clarification should be made?
I accept that victims and survivors live with a great deal of distress. I will not repeat in full my earlier remarks, but I reiterate that I accept that I could have come to the chamber earlier.
The cabinet secretary has been asked a couple of times today about correcting the Official Report. In response to Liam Kerr, she said that she had received no advice about correcting the Official Report. However, paragraph 13 of the independent advisers’ report says that
“some Officials had canvassed an opinion that Parliament may not have been misinformed.”
They were clearly wrong, but who were those officials? Were they independent civil servants or were they Scottish National Party special advisers? What did they do with the information that they canvassed?
Secondly, was the cabinet secretary personally interviewed or spoken to by the independent advisers? If she was not, how can they have come to the conclusion that the second breach was an error of judgment in the moment and not deliberate? If she was interviewed, what was her explanation for the fact that it was not an error of judgment in the moment but that, in fact, four days had elapsed between her requesting a private call and having the call on 1 December?
I cannot provide the information that Mr Ross seeks, because I do not know who the officials were directly. I gave extensive evidence to Mr Ross and the committee that he chairs about the fact that I had received Professor Jay’s letter. What I am now saying to Parliament is that I should have acted on that letter at the time. The matter was left in the hands of officials.
Who did what? I know that there is a lot of information out there that is publicly available as a result of freedom of information requests and so on, but I cannot stand here and provide the detail of the information that Mr Ross is requesting in the here and now.
Does the cabinet secretary believe that, with the publication of the independent advisers’ report, there should now be an end to the matter so that the cabinet secretary and Parliament can move on and concentrate on implementing the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025?
I very much hope that. In response to Ms Harper’s question, I stress to Parliament, that, even among all of this, I have never for a minute been distracted from the day-to-day job or the work that needs to be done to implement the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025.
The cabinet secretary said that she would rather be held to account, and take the harder road. However, every time an urgent question was brought to the chamber, the cabinet secretary was nowhere to be seen, or if she was in the chamber, the questions were answered by a junior minister rather than by her. In my view, that is dodging accountability and responsibility for her portfolio.
It has been mentioned by colleagues that the cabinet secretary has become a distraction. I agree with them—I believe that she has become a distraction not just from the review but from providing the much-needed confidence that victims need to have in the Government. Will the cabinet secretary now do the right thing and step down from her position to ensure that we have a clean slate and that we can move forward with a review on grooming gangs to get the answers for victims who have been impacted?
When I attended the Education, Children and Young People Committee before Christmas, I acknowledged that the urgent question that would rightfully have been for me to answer was the urgent question lodged by Mr Kerr on 19 November, when I was travelling on Government business. I should certainly have written to Mr Kerr at that time to offer to engage on the matter in any way that he saw fit.
I have answered urgent questions in this place. An urgent question from Ash Regan on a similar, related matter was very much focused on Police Scotland’s activity to deter and disrupt grooming gang-type activity. Other questions, because of the way that they were drafted, have indeed been for education colleagues to answer.
I stress that this work must be not only a cross-Government endeavour but a cross-Parliament endeavour, because the issue of how we best protect our children is a cross-societal endeavour.
That concludes the ministerial statement.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Earlier today, sources told a newspaper that Angela Constance would not be resigning or sacked as justice secretary. Those sources made those comments to the newspaper before any members in this chamber—certainly, any Opposition MSPs—had seen the report from the independent advisers, which gives their view that the cabinet secretary had breached the code twice but would not have to resign or be sacked as a result of that. That suggests that party-political sources within the nationalist governing party had access to the independent advisers’ report before others, and that they briefed it out.
Given your respect for this Parliament and for its being informed first, will you request of the First Minister that he launches an inquiry as to how that information was leaked into the public domain when, at that point, it should have been with only the First Minister and perhaps a few in his inner circle? The findings were clearly leaked to a newspaper before they were given to Parliament.
Thank you. I have been in the chamber all afternoon, so I am not aware of the points that Mr Ross raises, but Parliament will be only too well aware of my view that all important announcements should be made to Parliament in the first instance and that that must always be the case.
We will conclude that item of business there, because I am aware of the need to protect time for our next item of business. I will allow a momentary pause for members on the front benches to organise themselves.
Air ais
Civil Legal AssistanceAir adhart
Swimming Pools