Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will look at that.

I will look at that as quickly as possible.

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.

No, because—

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.

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 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.

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—

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.

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.