Professor Alexis Jay (Comments)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Professor Alexis Jay’s comments on grooming gang inquiries were misrepresented during a debate on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.
In stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, replying to Mr Kerr’s proposed amendment that the new post of victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland should carry out research into child sexual abuse, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs raised awareness of the work led by Professor Alexis Jay, who now sits on our national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. Ms Constance noted specifically that Professor Jay had been the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales and that Professor Jay had put on record in the past that, in regard to child sexual abuse and exploitation,
“people should just get on with it”.
It was minuted at the strategic group’s meeting in October that the Professor Jay quote was correct but that it was from January and not made in relation to the amendment or the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. Ms Constance did not state that Professor Jay was speaking directly about the amendment. She made a general point on Professor Jay’s views on calls for inquiries and that she, too, wanted to get on with the work that is needed to protect our children.
I thank the minister for that response, but I am surprised that the justice secretary is not here answering for her misrepresentation. Perhaps the minister will set out why in her response.
When the Parliament was asked to vote on my amendment, which would have ultimately led to a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry, had it been agreed to, members of the Scottish Parliament voted, in part, on the basis of information that was put before them by the cabinet secretary that was false. Does the minister concede that those MSPs who voted against my amendment might have voted in favour but for the false information? How does the Government propose to give the Parliament another chance to vote for a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry, but one that would, this time, be based on accurate information?
I should just set out that Ms Constance would have answered the question, but she is currently travelling on Scottish Government business.
Mr Kerr is not setting out properly the effect of the amendment that he lodged to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. All that the amendment would have required was that the victims and witnesses commissioner, who has not yet been appointed, undertake a report to consider whether any further action was required in that respect. That is not something that could happen today. The commissioner would have to first be appointed and consider whether it was appropriate to take any action. Essentially, it is distortion to say that a grooming gangs inquiry proposal was in front of the Parliament and was not supported.
That is more sophistry from the minister, first on the correction and then on what actually happened during the passage of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
We must never forget that the issue is really about the victims of this most heinous and vicious of crimes. One wrote to the First Minister saying that it is clear that abuse is on-going and demanding a rapid audit into grooming gangs in Scotland. Another, in powerful and harrowing testimony, told how she was trafficked to Scotland and abused in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Victims deserve answers and they deserve justice. Can the minister confirm that, now that the cabinet secretary is making accurate representations, she will finally grant a full Scottish grooming gangs inquiry?
The Scottish Government takes the matter very seriously. I reiterate the First Minister’s comments of last week in which he expressed admiration for the courage of victims in speaking out. I am deeply saddened to hear of any such instances, and I continue to encourage anyone who has been the victim of such abuse to report it to the police, who, of course, take those crimes very seriously.
Protecting children from harm is an absolute priority. That is why we are taking a number of actions and have been very clear that we are prepared to give consideration to a grooming gangs inquiry. However, we need to be clear on whether that is the best use of time and resources or whether there are other steps that would be more impactful for the victims and the people who are affected.
This week, I wrote to the cabinet secretary to ensure that the Government is not dismissing the fact that Scotland does not yet know the extent of the problem of grooming gangs, and asking for a briefing on the issue for Opposition parties. Given that the Scottish Government, in persuading Parliament not to vote for Liam Kerr’s amendment, relied on the words of, and quoted, Professor Alexis Jay but had not spoken to her, can the minister, on behalf of the cabinet secretary, tell Parliament whether the Government has now spoken to her? Do you have her advice on whether there should be a further inquiry into the sexual abuse of children in Scotland?
Always speak through the chair, please.
I have been clear that protecting children from harm is an absolute priority for me and the Government. Sexual abuse and exploitation are abhorrent crimes that have devastating impacts on victims and their families. In my response to Mr Kerr, I set out clearly the position on the comments around Ms Jay and on the positioning and the clarity that needed to be provided in relation to the amendment. I have been clear that we are taking a number of steps in relation to the actions that Police Scotland and the national group are progressing.
I understand the importance of the issue to members. Subject to the usual parliamentary processes, business managers have been informed that we intend to bring forward a parliamentary statement before the end of the year to inform members of next steps.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I rarely raise points of order, but I seek your guidance. What was the point of your selecting the urgent question? I asked a specific question: I want to know whether the Government asked Professor Alexis Jay for her advice. If I cannot even get an answer on that, what is the point of having an urgent question?
Although standing orders are silent when it comes to responses, it is of paramount importance that members, including ministers, give accurate information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. Responsibility for the content of members’ contributions is generally a matter for the member making them, but it is extremely important that answers are as comprehensive and accurate as time allows in any item of business.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not clear on how I have given any false information. Professor Alexis Jay sits on the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, so her advice is regularly sought through that process. I believe that that answers Pauline McNeill’s question.
That was not a point of order, minister.
I call Sharon Dowey.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. I understand that, on a motion without notice, the Presiding Officer can extend any period of debate, including a question session.
Given that a very specific question has not been answered, I wonder whether you might consider accepting such a motion at this time so that a further question can be put.
We are currently within the time that we have available today. As we have not yet gone over that time, I am content that we continue to use it.
I call Sharon Dowey.
Professor Alexis Jay’s comments on the grooming gang inquiries were misrepresented. Presumably, she was keen to ensure that the cabinet secretary was aware of that as soon as possible. Will the minister set out or disclose to us what communications on that were passed between the professor and the Scottish Government and when?
I am sorry, but I do not have that information specifically to hand. I am more than happy to provide that information if it is available. However, as I have been very clear, those comments were clarified at the most recent meeting of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. As I said, I am happy to provide that further information.
Again, I ask the very specific question: has the Government sought the advice of Professor Jay as to whether an independent review of child abuse cases is required in Scotland? Was that specific question put to Professor Jay? Yes or no?
I have given a specific answer to that question. Yes, advice has been sought from Professor Jay via the national CSAES group.
That concludes the urgent question.
Previous
EducationNext
Business Motions