Official Report 978KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on protecting children from harm. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:51
Protecting children from harm is of the utmost importance to this Government. Those who have suffered as victims of child sexual abuse have been let down by a system that should have protected them. Discussion of these topics—whether in the national press or in this chamber—should be sensitive to that trauma. All parties should, rightly, treat this matter with the appropriate care and seriousness that it demands. I welcome that Opposition leaders and spokespeople will have the opportunity to meet Professor Alexis Jay and Police Scotland on 14 January for a full briefing on their work.
As I previously set out to Parliament, the Scottish Government has not ruled out the establishment of an inquiry into group-based child abuse and exploitation. The experts on the national strategic group have been clear, however, that there is limited evidence at the current time on the nature and extent of the issue in Scotland. It is, therefore, imperative that that evidence base is established at pace, to clarify next steps and lessen prolonged suffering for the victims of these crimes. That evidence base matters to survivors. Last week, one of them told me:
“the current narrative is moving faster than the evidence base, and that policy, commentary, and public positioning must remain anchored in verified evidence rather than momentum or rhetoric. When language runs ahead of evidence, the consequences are borne not by commentators, but by survivors—through misrepresentation, loss of trust, and further harm.”
The national review has been established in part to scrutinise the effectiveness of local responses. It will be led by four statutory inspectorates that are, importantly, independent of Government and the organisations that they scrutinise. Crucially, those agencies have powers to compel public authorities to provide information that they request. Those powers will be critical to the success of the review. Public agencies will not be able to refuse to co-operate, and the inspectorates will help obtain the evidence that is needed to inform future decisions and investigations.
That approach will be underpinned by Professor Alexis Jay’s expert advice on its design and, at key stages of the process, will draw on her unrivalled experience in this area. Of course, that work will also operate within Scotland’s established constitutional arrangements, including the independent role of the Lord Advocate in directing the system of criminal investigation and prosecution. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and I are clear that that work must be undertaken at pace, with ministers, the national strategic group and the Parliament receiving regular and appropriate updates.
The review will be conducted in three parts, with reports provided iteratively to ministers. In the first part, the inspectorates will scrutinise data and evidence from all local authorities about the risk and threat of group-based abuse and exploitation. That rigorous work will be detailed, ensuring that all responses from local authorities are scrutinised. I assure members that, if any harm or risk is identified during the review, it will immediately be escalated through the appropriate channels, including to Police Scotland as required. Action will be taken, and it will not need to wait for the review to conclude or for an inquiry.
I know that, like me, members will have welcomed the news last week that the Scottish child abuse inquiry confirmed that, as part of its phase 10 hearings, it will be able to hear and act on evidence that relates to grooming and group-based child sexual abuse, where that falls within the inquiry’s terms of reference.
I want to be clear with Parliament today that any person who considers that they might have been groomed, and sexually exploited as a result, while in residential care before 17 December 2014 has a right to contact the inquiry.
The national review, Police Scotland’s on-going work and the advice of the national strategic group, which is chaired by Professor Jay, will gather evidence, help us to take action now where it is needed and inform advice to ministers on whether a national inquiry on group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation is required. Ministers expect to be able to update the Parliament more fully on that work by the end of February.
We must also ensure that survivors’ experience is at the heart of our considerations; their voices must be heard and listened to. It is critical that we take the right approach and involve survivors in a trauma-informed way and with appropriate safeguards in place.
I do not underestimate how distressing it is for survivors to share their experiences of abuse. I commend the courage of those who have already spoken out, whether publicly or privately with the Government. I say to them: be in no doubt—your voices matter.
Today, along with the justice secretary, I wrote to the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse to request that we attend a meeting in the new year to hear directly from the wide range of survivors that the CPG represents. This approach of engagement with the CPG mirrors the approach that has been taken by the national strategic group, which, at its next meeting, in January, will further consider more strategic approaches to engagement with victims. It is vital that the views and experiences of survivors inform the work that we are taking forward.
I want to reassure survivors about an issue of significant concern to them, which is the retention of records and information that relate to their experience and are pertinent to this work. I know that this matter has caused—and continues to cause—significant distress. Therefore, the director general for education and justice has today written to key agencies and organisations, asking them to review their document retention policies in order to ensure the retention of all documents that may be relevant to the national review. That is in addition to the instruction that the Scottish child abuse inquiry issued, when it began its work, on keeping records and information that it would wish to review and consider.
It is shocking and sickening that children and young people in our society continue to be sexually abused, often by members of their own family, as well as, increasingly, through online exploitation. Therefore, we must also invest in initiatives that address such harm and help children and young people to recover.
To date, the Government has provided £20 million for the bairns’ hoose programme to enhance holistic, child-centred support for children who have been harmed. That is in addition to funding for third sector organisations that are working to prevent—and protect children from—sexual abuse and exploitation.
Today, I announce a further £220,000 of funding to be deployed immediately during this financial year. That will enable the United Kingdom Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse to undertake pilots in two Scottish local authorities in 2026-27. These pilots will provide access to experts and resources to help build the skills and confidence of front-line practitioners in identifying and responding to child sexual abuse cases.
The funding will help support the Lucy Faithfull Foundation to strengthen its work in Scotland with young people and families who are impacted by online sexual offending. It will also support free access to online harm training from the Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation.
Additional funding will be provided to enhance Police Scotland’s digital forensics capability and ability to act on online harm. That funding to Police Scotland will, importantly, build upon the existing capabilities of the national child abuse investigation unit, which provides a specialist approach to tackling child abuse and exploitation. It is focused on complex cases that involve multiple victims or perpetrators, and on organised networks. It conducts around 700 investigations per year.
Just as we must investigate and address what has happened in the recent past, so must we ensure that we are doing all that we can in the here and now. We must work to protect children and young people from harm and, importantly, to identify required improvements to current approaches. In 2021, we published revised national child protection guidance to support the development of evidence-based responses. That guidance makes clear what everyone working with children must do to protect children from harm, including reporting to social work and the police when a child is experiencing or is at risk of abuse or exploitation.
We are also rolling out national training for local services and professionals on interagency referral discussions. These discussions are fundamental to our system of child protection in Scotland. They bring together the police, social work, health services and wider partners to share information, assess risk and agree a safety plan.
In recognition of the increasing complexity of child sexual abuse, we established the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group last year. From January 2026, the group will be chaired independently by Professor Alexis Jay. I pay tribute to the determination and drive of its recent co-chair, Iona Colvin, Scotland’s chief social work adviser, who is retiring this week, following a career that was dedicated to protecting Scotland’s children and young people from harm, abuse and neglect.
To build on the work of the strategic group, I want us to go further. The mandatory reporting of child abuse has been the subject of recent discussions in the chamber. Many professionals in Scotland already have a duty to report child abuse; I know that from my time in schools. However, the national strategic group has been actively considering the case for a broader statutory requirement for mandatory reporting. I want to be clear with Parliament that the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is supported in principle by Scottish ministers, and a task and finish group is being established, under the guidance of the national strategic group, to consider potential models for that.
This Government is determined to take action to establish the potential extent and scale of child sexual exploitation. That includes conducting an independent national review to assess the prevalence of this type of abuse and the effectiveness of local systems, and identify any risks or evidence that require early action.
I have provided further detail on our approach to the national review; I have set out how we will involve survivors to ensure that their voices are heard; I have announced additional funding to help professionals better protect children and prevent harm; and I have indicated our support for the development of mandatory reporting options for Scotland.
However, this work must be a shared endeavour. All MSPs, from all political parties, have a role to play in protecting Scotland’s children and young people from harm. I therefore invite MSPs from across the chamber to support the work that is under way and, crucially, to offer their input and ideas by engaging meaningfully. Our children and young people deserve nothing less.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for those. I encourage members who wish to ask questions to press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Scottish National Party Government did not want to talk about grooming gangs; it said that they were not a problem in Scotland. Well, those gangs—or paedophile rings—are a problem in Scotland. Every survivor I have spoken to has no trust in the Government in relation to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation.
The justice secretary has been sidelined because she misrepresented an expert, then denied doing so and has still not corrected the record. Her responses today raise even more questions about her conduct and her integrity.
This morning, I met Kimberley Hutchison, who is a survivor of child sexual exploitation that started when she was 10 years old. She told me that the Government is
“behaving in the same way as those who exploited and trafficked us”.
She and others use words such as “chaotic”, “shambles”, “dishonest” and “disgraceful”.
The Conservatives remain clear, as do survivors, that there must be an independent inquiry. If the Government has any hope whatsoever of rebuilding trust, it must start listening to survivors and must not create another talking shop. Will ministers heed their calls to include survivors on the existing national strategic group and the new task and finish group?
I thank Mr Findlay for his question and his interest in the issue. He raises the case of an individual by the name of Kimberley, and I want to put on the record my own intention to meet survivors. Like Mr Findlay, I have met Taylor’s mum, with whom Mr Findlay has engaged directly, and I would be very keen to offer a meeting to Kimberley. I have set out some of the steps that I will take as cabinet secretary, alongside the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, to engage directly with the cross-party group and survivors, but it is important that that work is undertaken in a trauma-informed way, which I set out in my statement.
In her evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning, Professor Alexis Jay talked at length about the importance of listening to survivor voice. She also talked about not thinking of survivors as a monolithic group—a point that Mr Greer made in the chamber yesterday.
In my statement to the Parliament today, I read a quote from a survivor who has been in touch with my office, and I want to come back to that. The survivor who contacted me said:
“When language runs ahead of evidence, the consequences are borne not by commentators, but by survivors—through misrepresentation, loss of trust, and further harm.”
The evidence base is something that we have not yet established, and Alexis Jay has been very clear on that. The requirements behind the review set out the ways in which the evidence base will be established. I will come back in February to provide a fuller update in that regard, as I set out to Parliament in my statement.
Every day, the Government’s approach to the grooming gangs inquiry is more chaotic—we have a cobbled-together response and a structure that is still confusing.
Last week, the four inspectorates that the press asked about the matter were still awaiting guidance, and the Care Inspectorate said that it still had not been contacted by the Government. I ask the cabinet secretary whether it is not time to agree with Scottish Labour that the review requires clear leadership and the obvious person to lead it is Professor Alexis Jay herself. She is the right expert to direct such a review. Further to that, is the cabinet secretary satisfied that victims have full confidence in what she has announced today?
I asked the Government why it did not seem to have any prior understanding of the seriousness of organised child exploitation. Has it really treated the issue with the seriousness that it deserves? I still await an answer about the 46 children on the Police Scotland list, because we still do not know what has happened to that list. I was promised an answer last week. Can the Government convince me today that I will get an answer to my question?
I thank Ms McNeill for her question and her on-going interest in these matters.
I come to the point about the Care Inspectorate in particular, which is one of the four independent inspectorates that will lead the national review. I want to put on the record—I have checked this with my officials—that, on 20 November, the first version of the signed national review proposal was received from the Care Inspectorate, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland and Education Scotland, and it was shared with Professor Alexis Jay for expert advice. On 28 November, feedback from Professor Jay on the national proposal was shared with all four inspectorate partners. I am not necessarily sure that I follow Ms McNeill’s argument on the Care Inspectorate, but, just for assurance, my officials are engaged directly with it, and they have been appraised of that.
In relation to Pauline McNeill’s point about the national review, I go back to the points that I made in the chamber two weeks ago. These independent inspectorates have responsibilities and statutory powers that do not rest with ministers. They are able to interrogate information from local authorities, for example, and they will be able to come back with evidence, advice and guidance. Throughout that process, Professor Alexis Jay will inform the methodology that they use, and she will provide expertise on that. She spoke to some of those matters in front of the education committee this morning.
The final point that Ms McNeill raises relates to victim engagement. Again, that is a matter that the strategic group is taking forward, as I understand it, at its next meeting in January. I, along with Ms Constance, have also committed to engaging with the CPG and survivors. I have been very open to that and have already started to undertake some of that work.
However, it is important that we have an effective strategy. Alexis Jay talked about the need for that to be undertaken in a sensitive manner, so we will take advice from the strategic group when it meets in January in relation to how we engage, but we will also continue our work with the CPG, noting its expertise in that area.
As members might expect, there is considerable interest in asking questions. I will try to get everybody in, but the questions will need to be fairly brief.
I am pleased to hear more detail about the national review and that phases will be concurrent. I do not underestimate the important work that the inspectorates will carry out. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is now time to allow the professionals involved the space to undertake their vital contribution and for MSPs to focus on how that will support the work to protect children?
It is important to emphasise that Police Scotland is already undertaking work to review child sexual abuse and exploitation cases, and the national review, which is being led by the inspectorates, will be starting rapidly. That national review is not just about gathering information and providing the scrutiny to which I have spoken; it is also about experienced professionals identifying and recommending improvements that will protect our children. Findings from the review will be responded to as they come to light, and updates will be provided to the Parliament on how the review supports the protection of Scotland’s children. As I intimated in my statement, I intend to return to the Parliament in February to provide further updates to that end.
The absence of reliable data was exactly the issue that I raised in my amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in September, so I recognise the imperative of gathering that. However, given the time that has already been lost, can the cabinet secretary tell me clearly when the review will conclude, what the key milestones and dates are, and—crucially—what findings or thresholds would trigger a full independent inquiry?
I thank Liam Kerr for his interest in the matter. I reassure him that that point was discussed at the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning, with my ministerial colleagues and officials. In relation to his amendment, one of the officials from the education team was keen to point to the existence of other commissioners in the education space—for example, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. I am mindful that Mr Kerr will be au fait with that from his time on that committee. However, his substantive point about data is important, and I go back to the quote that I read out from a survivor who contacted me last week.
We require to establish the evidence base that we do not yet have. That may lead to the establishment of an inquiry. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of that review, but I will come back to the Parliament in February to set out more detail to that end.
I was pleased that the cabinet secretaries have offered to meet the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. As chair of that group, I have received the letter on that, and I look forward to the meeting happening in the new year.
One area that the group has focused on in recent months is that of mandatory reporting. I welcome what the cabinet secretary said on that in her statement. Will she say a bit more about the considerations of the national strategic group that she referred to, and when she thinks that it might draw conclusions on the potential models that she talked about?
As I said, we are considering the case for a broader statutory requirement on the mandatory reporting of child abuse, and we are engaging very closely on that with stakeholders, including the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood abuse, Police Scotland, Social Work Scotland, Child Protection Committees Scotland and others. The national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group has discussed the issue at its past two meetings and has agreed that more work is required to consider mandatory reporting in relation to the depth that is provided. It agreed to establish a task and finish group to develop options for a Scottish mandatory reporting model. That group is currently being set up. I again put on the record ministers’ support in principle for mandatory reporting.
The task and finish group—to which, I think, Professor Jay alluded to in responding to the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning—will take forward work to consider and develop options for Scotland and report into the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which will be under Alexis Jay’s leadership.
My sense from the committee evidence sessions this morning is that the Government does not have a grip on many of the issues. Given the reporting earlier in the week, it is clear that there has been confusion within review bodies, multiple ministers have taken parts of responsibility, and there were no terms of reference. However, I note what the cabinet secretary has now said about trying to get more clarity on that.
This morning, I pushed the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on the importance of victims and their concerns about the landscape being too cluttered, not being clear on who is responsible and, ultimately, not having confidence in the process.
Question.
If a victim would not be covered by the pre-2014 point that Ms Gilruth made, where should they go if they have a story to share?
I was taken by some of Alexis Jay’s commentary at this morning’s evidence session. She talked about lack of evidence and low levels of reporting. We need to be mindful that much of this type of crime is, by its nature, hidden. Often, the abuse involves a power differential. It is hidden in plain sight, so we need to be mindful that that underreporting—the low level of reporting—requires interrogation. That is why I set out in Parliament two weeks ago the approach that we are taking with the independent inspectorates.
On victims, the work of the national strategic group is relevant in this space. As I think Alexis Jay said when she provided an update to the committee, that will be taken forward through broader work by the strategic group in January. I have also set out my intention, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, to engage with the cross-party group on adult survivors. Further to that, we will take advice from the strategic group on ministerial engagement with survivors. I will come back to Parliament in February to say more about that, but it is important that that is undertaken in a trauma-informed manner.
Although I know that Paul O’Kane’s question was not about the Scottish child abuse inquiry, it is again worth putting on record that, as was intimated on Monday last week, the Scottish child abuse inquiry can look at instances that may constitute grooming or group-based child sexual abuse, should it be within the terms of reference of the inquiry. I encourage those who think that they may have been affected to contact the inquiry directly, because it is there for good reason.
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a trustee of Break the Silence, which is a charity that offers therapy to people who are affected by childhood sexual trauma.
I agree that victim/survivors should be listened to and heard. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that victim/survivors and their families will have access to trauma-informed resources and support before, during and after they have contributed their views and stories?
Ruth Maguire raises a hugely important point. Many years ago, when I was on the Justice Committee, I visited Oslo to look at the bairns’ hoose model and how that trauma-informed approach works to support child victims of sexual abuse.
We must ensure that survivors’ experience is at the heart of our considerations. The justice secretary’s and my engagement with the CPG is part of that work, as is the focus of the national strategic group. However, I listened with interest to what Professor Jay said on that to the committee this morning. It is hugely important that we acknowledge that there is not a single community of survivors, so we need to take on board her advice and look at how we can engage widely. For example, she spoke about children, in particular, and the ways in which we can engage with different groups of survivors and the appropriate means of doing so, for example, via trauma-informed approaches such as the bairns’ hoose model.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I worked for a rape crisis centre before being elected.
The Government has indicated its support in principle for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. Given concerns that survivors’ organisations have raised about unintended consequences, such as children being deterred from seeking help or trust being undermined in support services, will the cabinet secretary consider a full human rights and child rights impact assessment before introducing proposals? Will she also ensure that any model that is adopted strengthens, rather than weakens, early intervention and survivor trust?
I think that it is fair to say that there are a range of views on the issue. Ministers’ views have been informed by the points that Liam Kerr made about data and underreporting.
We are mindful of the factors that Maggie Chapman has noted. I am broadly supportive of what she has set out regarding human rights considerations, but we must also be mindful that we do not have a reliable data set at the current time, and that is required in order to make a decision on whether we will have further inquiries.
Mandatory reporting is a key part of our response as a Government in that regard, but I take on board the issues that Maggie Chapman has raised in that respect.
The problem with that answer is that it may result in a lower level of reporting, because young people might just shut down. They might fear the consequences of reporting; the enormity of reporting might result in our getting lower levels of data than we otherwise would. I urge the cabinet secretary to be cautious and to move forward carefully, working with the professionals, to ensure that we get this right, because we must get it right.
I absolutely concur with Mr Rennie’s position. There will be a reticence to report—I think that he spoke to the views of young people and their fear of reporting. However, the reality is that, as I think I said to Maggie Chapman, the recorded levels of such crimes is very low currently and it is important that we build that evidence base. Mandatory reporting can be part of building a better evidence base, but the way in which we engage in that work is really important.
I take on board Mr Rennie’s points on expertise, and ministers will very much be guided by the advice and guidance that we receive from the national strategic group, which, of course, is chaired by Alexis Jay.
In my work prior to becoming a member of the Parliament, I supported far too many young women who were trafficked into prostitution following grooming while in care. Accountability is key to preventing such harm and will shine a bright light where it is needed.
Will the cabinet secretary set out the steps that will be taken to ensure that care-experienced young people, many of whom are living with complex and multiple trauma, are not failed by fragmented systems but are listened to and believed? How will we ensure that education, social work and all the partner agencies are effectively co-ordinated and held accountable for keeping care-experienced young people safe in the first place?
As Elena Whitham mentioned care-experienced young people, I should put on the record my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that my wife is a member of the Promise oversight board.
It is important that we have a strategic approach to these issues. The member referred to a number of agencies that have responsibilities. Those agencies and partners have representation on the national strategic group, which is the key group that will give advice and guidance to ministers on the next step to inform whether we establish further inquiries. We require the evidence base, via the four independent inspectorates, on whether the threshold has been met. That is the necessary work that I set out to Parliament two weeks ago.
The cabinet secretary has acknowledged the importance of preserving records and information that are relevant to the review, yet instructions to review and retain documents are being issued only today. Given the concerns about the loss of evidence in historical abuse cases that have been raised repeatedly by victims, experts and the Parliament, why were those safeguards not put in place at the outset of the process? What assurance can the cabinet secretary give that relevant records have not already been lost during the delay?
As I understand it, the Scottish child abuse inquiry put in place a number of requirements in that regard many years ago. Today, we have supplemented and strengthened the approach via communication in that regard from the director general for education and justice. That has come as a direct result of engagement with victims and from listening to their experiences on records retention. I know the distress and trauma that records being destroyed has caused to victims. It is imperative that that behaviour does not happen in any of our organisations that are involved in protecting children and young people. What has been set out today further strengthens that approach, but it has already been taken via the Scottish child abuse inquiry.
I welcome the clarification from the Scottish child abuse inquiry that its phase 10 will include grooming gangs where that issue falls within the inquiry’s terms of reference. How does the inquiry’s independent work inform the Scottish Government’s approach to improving child protection measures?
The work of the inquiry is already providing a very detailed picture of failings across a wide range of care settings. The Government has welcomed each of the inquiry’s interim findings, and we have emphasised that they vindicate the harrowing testimony of survivors. We will continue to listen carefully to the evidence that is being given from survivors, and we are fully participating in the inquiry process.
The inquiry’s final report will make recommendations to improve on regulation, policy and practice. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to learning lessons from the inquiry’s work and to responding to it to improve the protection of children in care.
Survivors have lost confidence, so can the cabinet secretary outline what kind of further inquiry might take place? For example, is it a full public inquiry that is being considered? What would be its remit and timescale? Who is doing the work on that? Can she clarify whether the terms of reference of the Scottish child abuse inquiry include abuse of children who were in care when the abuse took place where the abuse took place outside the care setting and by perpetrators who were not employed in the care sector or connected to it?
Two weeks ago, I set out to Parliament the approach that we are taking through the four inspectorates and established their responsibilities. They will come back to provide the evidence base to the national strategic group, which will then provide advice to ministers. It would be remiss of me to prejudge the outcome of those investigations. Alexis Jay has been clear over the past few weeks, including today at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, that the evidence base does not yet exist to substantiate the need for further inquiries. We require the evidence base to be built, which is what the four inspectorates have been tasked with doing. They are undertaking that work at pace.
On Katy Clark’s question on the Scottish child abuse inquiry, I think that that is the approach that Lady Smith set out and that is our understanding of the terms of reference of the inquiry. However, I will write to the member specifically on that detail, to give her clarity on that point.
We have a little additional time this afternoon, so I will call the final two speakers who want to ask a question.
We have had public inquiries that have gone on for years and years, and I question whether that serves the victims very well. Could the cabinet secretary make a commitment that, if there was to be a public inquiry further down the line, it would be time limited? That is happening with the United Kingdom inquiry, which I believe is for three years.
I think that John Mason pursued that same line of questioning at the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning, and the costs associated with public inquiries have also been debated by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. As I stated in my response to Katy Clark, the evidence base on the need for further public inquiries has not yet been gathered, so it would not be appropriate for me to rule them out today. I will also not make a general comment in relation to time limits, because we do not yet have that evidence base. However, when we do have the evidence base, the strategic group will provide advice and guidance to ministers on those matters.
Will the cabinet secretary agree to report back to the Parliament on any destruction and loss of evidence and records when she is made aware that such an incident has happened?
Russell Findlay asked whether survivors would be included in the Government’s existing strategic group or in the new task and finish group, which I do not think that she answered.
On both points, I support reporting back to the Scottish Parliament. On records retention, I am happy to report back if we are provided with information from inspectorates on that. As I said in my statement, I will provide a fuller update to that end in February.
I apologise to Mr Findlay, because I meant to catch the point on the inclusion of victims earlier. The strategic group is actively looking at that issue. At its next meeting in January, the group will discuss ways to engage with victims, and I am more than happy to write to the member or provide an update in February to give reassurance that victims’ voices will be at the heart of how the review is conducted.
That concludes this item of business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow front-bench members to change.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Cybercrime