Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Forgive me.

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.

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.

Of course.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.