Official Report 425KB 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.
15:26
Safeguarding Scotland’s children from harm is one of the Scottish Government’s utmost responsibilities. Since my previous parliamentary statement in December, I have spent further time engaging directly with survivors of child sexual abuse. Their testimonies are shocking in the extreme. They tell the story of a system that far too often does not believe young people. Those stories, each of which is unique, are bound by a common thread of power being used to abuse, coerce and control. Survivors have rightly called for meaningful change. They want decisive action to uncover, disrupt and, ultimately, prevent these horrendous crimes from ever happening in the first instance.
The Scottish child abuse inquiry has taken extensive evidence and has published a number of reports on the abhorrent historical abuse of children. I strongly welcome Lady Smith’s work in phase 10, and the confirmation that the inquiry will be able to hear and act on evidence relating to grooming and group-based child sexual abuse where that falls within the inquiry’s terms of reference. That work remains vitally important, and I commend the inquiry for its approach.
I welcome the updates that were provided to the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning on the completion of the first phase of Police Scotland’s review work and the on-going delivery of the national review. Some commentary has suggested that the findings of the national review will be available only once the review is fully complete. I want to be clear with Parliament and survivors today that that is not the case. Phase 1 of the national review will report to ministers by this summer.
The work of the national review is imperative in providing assurance that improvements will be made at the local level. It will also be instructive, given the challenges of reporting and recording of child sexual abuse at the local level. I reiterate that, if any harm or risk to a young person is identified at any point during the national review, that will immediately be escalated through the appropriate channels, including to Police Scotland, as required.
I remind Parliament that our local authorities already have statutory responsibilities to identify, report and take action to protect any child who is at risk of harm. As a society, we all have a responsibility to protect our children. However, as I made clear in December, there is limited evidence at the current time on the nature and extent of group-based child sexual abuse in Scotland. It is therefore imperative that that evidence base is established at pace to clarify next steps and to lessen prolonged suffering for the victims of these crimes.
I know that members and survivors of child sexual abuse want to see accountability and improvements as quickly as possible, and that sense of urgency is shared by Government.
In December, I made it clear that the Government would keep the decision on whether to establish an inquiry into group-based child sexual abuse under review. I committed to return to the Parliament in February with a more substantive update. Accordingly, I have considered the issue carefully, looked at the available evidence—which continues to evolve—and, importantly, listened to the voices of survivors and experts.
To that end, I can confirm to the Parliament today that I intend to establish a statutory public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry will consider directly Scotland’s response to group‑based child sexual abuse and exploitation. I have asked Professor Alexis Jay to lead the inquiry, and I am pleased to confirm that she has agreed to do so.
Professor Jay has unrivalled experience of chairing both statutory and non-statutory inquiries that relate to child sexual abuse and exploitation. She will have the authority to identify and take forward any additional or accelerated areas of work as she considers necessary within the scope of finalised terms of reference, which will now be developed with her input. She will draw on her experience of leading the independent inquiry in Rotherham and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, as well as her vast experience in other areas of child protection, which includes over 30 years of professional experience in social work.
In order to maintain the strict independence of this work and the inquiry, Professor Jay will immediately cease her role providing advice to the national review. While the inquiry’s terms of reference are being developed, Professor Jay will remain chair of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, and those arrangements will be reviewed.
However, I am of the view that the announcement of an independent public inquiry is critical to maintaining public confidence in the work that I announced in December and to encouraging openness and participation from victims and survivors. This inquiry will be distinct from the Scottish child abuse inquiry: it will focus specifically on group-based child abuse and exploitation, whereas the Scottish child abuse inquiry, despite looking at those issues, has a far broader remit. The new inquiry will focus on the potential prevalence of group‑based abuse now and in the more recent past, whether it has been brought forward by survivors or in relation to the findings from the national review or Police Scotland’s review of case files.
The Scottish child abuse inquiry will remain critical. As I have previously made clear to the Parliament, the existing inquiry has taken, and continues to take, evidence in relation to group-based harm and sexual exploitation of children in care, wherever the abuse took place. In due course, it will also make recommendations about our system of protection for children in care, based on all the evidence that it has heard.
This morning, alongside the Deputy First Minister, I met Lady Smith to inform her of the decision to announce the new inquiry. I have confirmed that the new inquiry will not duplicate the on-going valuable work of the Scottish child abuse inquiry in this area.
Taking the decision to establish an inquiry now enables us to make progress in parallel with the on-going national review and the Police Scotland review of cases. Establishing the inquiry will also provide additional assurance to survivors that there will be independent scrutiny of the national review’s findings. Although I, Professor Jay and the inspectorates have confidence in the robustness of those processes, which are very much operationally independent, that additional layer of independence will provide survivors with further assurance and confidence.
For many survivors, distrust is rooted in lived experience of past failures to protect children from organisations, address allegations or take concerns seriously. There is a perception that institutions act defensively in order to protect organisational reputations rather than prioritise truth seeking or accountability. That has been a consistent theme in my discussions with survivors. All too often, when victims spoke up, institutions already knew, and institutions that had the powers to act—and importantly, the powers to help—did not act to prevent abuse from occurring. Therefore, the inquiry will have the fullest investigatory powers that it requires. Along with the appointment of Professor Alexis Jay as chair, I hope that that provides survivors and the public with confidence in the process and its necessary independence.
In December, survivor engagement was a key theme in my update to the Parliament. Getting that right is imperative. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm to the Parliament that John O’Brien, who led the truth project in England and Wales, has agreed to lead the development and delivery of a truth project in Scotland.
To support our work, John O’Brien will bring a wealth of experience and expertise in delivering a successful project that has already supported thousands of survivors in England and Wales. Last week, I met Mr O’Brien to better understand the approach that he built to support the independent inquiry on child sexual abuse in England and Wales.
Our approach in Scotland will seek to mirror that work. We will ensure that we hear from survivors and allow them the opportunity to share their experiences, which will inform policy change. Importantly, we will provide access to support. The national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group will also consider how it can engage survivors in its work.
Given the scale and costs to the public purse of public inquiries, the Government has not taken this step lightly. Nonetheless, I consider the establishment of a public inquiry to now be essential. Although it will be for the chair to consider such matters, I know from our discussions thus far that Professor Jay wants the inquiry to be carried out at pace.
The Government is determined to act decisively to protect children from the horrendous harm of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The work of the national review and Police Scotland’s on-going review of cases of group-based abuse will ensure that any improvements that must be made to practice or action to bring perpetrators to justice are made as quickly as possible.
The truth project will ensure that the voice of survivors is central to our collective efforts, so that every action is informed by their experiences and brings about the changes that they have told me must be made. John O’Brien’s involvement and his particular expertise and experience of delivering a successful project to support the one that we will establish in Scotland will be essential. The statutory inquiry that will be chaired by Professor Alexis Jay will contribute to an even more comprehensive response.
It is imperative that all organisations with responsibilities for safeguarding use their powers to ensure that our children are protected. We know that that has not always been the case in the past and that, as a result, children and young people have been let down and lives have been ruined.
The announcement of an independent public inquiry will not cure all that has come before, but it is a statement of intent from the Government that we will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of justice for survivors of child sexual abuse. Indeed, those brave survivors should expect nothing less.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.
Finally. We have been calling for a public inquiry on grooming gangs since my colleague, Liam Kerr, lodged an amendment in that regard in September last year. I note that the statement refers to the Government sharing the sense of urgency, but, to be clear, we are at this point only because of the relentless campaigning by victims groups and the continual questions that my Conservative colleagues have asked.
We have known for some time that victims have highlighted cross-border trafficking, and it is scandalous that they were not listened to before now. Every day that we have waited for an inquiry, another victim has gone without the justice that they deserve.
When pushed, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs asked Meghan Gallacher to make the case for a public inquiry and questioned what added value it would bring. I wonder what has happened to change the Government’s mind in that regard.
It is essential that the inquiry is independent, its terms of reference must be defined without further delay, and all institutions must be held accountable.
Cabinet secretary, your colleagues have misled the Parliament on the matter, so we must have absolute faith in the process and the inquiry’s findings. What are the inquiry’s parameters? Is anything off limits? What does the Government expect the timeframe to be for the report to be published for scrutiny? Will you provide MSPs with any additional evidence that has led to this U-turn? The inquiry will consider historical matters, but what immediate targeted support will be provided to police, social work and specialist child protection services to ensure for victims that there are no more cover-ups?
Always speak through the chair.
Roz McCall touched on a number of points, and I will try to cover each in turn.
Ms McCall talked specifically about having faith in the process. Throughout my engagement with survivors, I have been keen to ensure that all these issues are not politicised. Across the board, we need to be careful not to use individual cases in the chamber, for example. Instead, we must consider the evidence base, which is exactly what I have been doing throughout this process, in order to arrive at informed decisions.
In December, I gave an update to the Parliament on the work of the inspectorates. On Ms McCall’s point about timescales and the terms of reference, that work will be pivotal in informing Alexis Jay’s understanding of the terms of reference. She will be the inquiry’s independent chair, so it is not for me, as the cabinet secretary, to stipulate what the terms of reference should be.
The point about independence has also consistently been put to me by survivors. I am sure that Roz McCall has also heard that through her engagement with survivors, many of whom lack faith in some of those organisations, for well understood reasons. Bringing a level of independence to the process is, therefore, hugely important.
Roz McCall mentioned that this represented a U-turn from Government. However, I do not necessarily accept that point. The wording of my statement in December was very clear that the Government was not, at that point, ruling out further inquiries in this space. I also said that I would come back to Parliament in February with a more substantive update. I have done that today and I have committed to a further inquiry, which I am glad to hear that Conservative members will support.
I will make a final point in relation to policing, which is that additional funding has been provided to Police Scotland through the budget. We will, of course, come to stage 3 of the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill later this afternoon, and I very much hope that the Conservatives find themselves able to vote for a budget that will provide additional income to Police Scotland to allow it to respond to some of the real challenges that we see in relation to child sexual abuse.
I thank the national press for the advance sight of this announcement; it would have been preferable if we had heard it in the chamber first.
Scottish Labour fully supports the establishment of an inquiry into the full extent of group-based child exploitation in order to get to the truth behind the problem. I thank the cabinet secretary for her updates and I am grateful for all the work that has been done by Professor Alexis Jay.
It seems that we do not have any early indications of what data there is to date, which the inquiry will scrutinise. The first phase was to report in the summer, but we now have an expedited timetable, which is welcome. However, I want to be clear about what has informed the decision to bring it forward. What do we know now that we did not know then? Has substantial information emerged since then? Has there been any preliminary estimation of the extent of grooming gang crime in Scotland? Given that there has been only one meeting of the review, I wonder whether, and how, substantial information has come to light. I think that the cabinet secretary has to share that information. If she is not able to share it today, I have to ask: what exactly will the inquiry be looking at, until it gets the evidence? Does it mean that the inquiry cannot get off the ground until victims come forward and give that data?
Before I ask the cabinet secretary to respond, I will take up the first issue that Ms McNeill raised. It is, of course, the case that one should not read in the media about an announcement of such significance before the information has been made known to this Parliament. It is extremely disappointing and, indeed, disrespectful to this Parliament and its elected representatives that that appears to have been the case in this instance.
I will take Pauline McNeill’s points in turn, beginning with her question about expedited timescales. To confirm, the announcement that I have made today on an independent inquiry is not going to offset the timescales that are already set out by the inspectorate: those are set in relation to the work that will report in the summer. That will help to inform the terms of reference that Alexis Jay will then seek to develop, as an independent chair.
Pauline McNeill also mentioned that there has been one meeting of the review. I know that Alexis Jay was in front of the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning. In her evidence, she stated that she has been meeting the inspectorates nearly every week and that she has been impressed by the co-operation and quality of work, which is being carried out at pace. The work started in November and the inspectorates have appropriately engaged with Alexis Jay on her knowledge of the subject matter. According to the evidence that was heard in Parliament earlier today, therefore, there have been a number of different engagements in relation to the work of the inspectorates. My view is that that work will complement the work of the independent inquiry, but it is for the independent chair to arrive at the terms of reference, working with Government in that regard.
There is an issue here in relation to independence, which goes back to the point that I made to Roz McCall. It is about survivors having faith in the process, and providing an independent inquiry will allow survivors to have that faith, which is hugely important. I have been keen to engage and reflect on some of those engagements, including with Ms Constance at the cross-party group very recently. We need to ensure that survivors have faith in the process.
I also announced today further work in relation to the truth project, which John O’Brien will lead on. That will also bring a new approach to survivor engagement and will, I believe, strengthen our approach in Scotland. It has worked very well in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I am very pleased that John O’Brien has agreed to lead that piece of work with us. It will complement the work of the independent inquiry and, more broadly, the work of the inspectorates, which will continue in parallel to the inquiry.
A number of members wish to ask questions, so we need succinct questions and answers to match.
At this morning’s Education, Children and Young People Committee meeting, I asked His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland how long decisions around the review and the reading of case files and datasets would take. He said that that would take another year or so. In her statement, the cabinet secretary said that she has been considering the issue carefully and looking at the available evidence, which continues to evolve. She has not answered the question of what new evidence has become available or what, beyond the Scottish Conservatives’ calls for the inquiry, the Government has based this decision on. Will she tell the Parliament today what additional information she now has?
It is fair to say that the evidence base on the issue continues to evolve. I have set out some of our work on the requirements for this to be an independent inquiry, which is hugely important. I have spent a great deal of time listening to survivors, which has also formed part of our thinking with regard to the inquiry. It is imperative that survivors have faith in the work of the inspectorates and the work of the independent inquiry.
The broader work that I mentioned, which is to be led by John O’Brien, will sit alongside the inquiry. That unique piece of work will be hugely important for providing information and listening to survivors. As cabinet secretary, I have set up engagements for MSPs on a cross-party basis throughout this process. We held one such engagement in a parliamentary committee room in January with all the inspectorates and Alexis Jay. We will hold another in March, and I am keen to ask John O’Brien to attend it in order to ensure that MSPs across the political divide are kept up to date, although I recognise that we are approaching dissolution.
I am delighted to hear about the establishment of the truth project and the inquiry. Will the cabinet secretary provide further detail about how the truth project and the inquiry will interact and work alongside each other to ensure that survivors’ voices feed into the inquiry, which you have rightly said is a priority?
As I said, the remit of the truth project will be developed, and part of that will involve consideration of its interaction with the inquiry. Members who attended this morning’s Education, Children and Young People Committee meeting heard more from Alexis Jay on the detail of the truth project. It is not necessary for a truth project to run alongside a statutory inquiry, but, as I know from John O’Brien, if they do so, that can provide valuable information from survivors. The establishment of a Scottish truth project will allow survivors the opportunity to share their experiences, inform policy changes and, importantly, access support.
I am mindful that, when we talk about such issues in the chamber, it can be retraumatising for victims, so we need to be careful about the way in which we conduct ourselves and talk about such issues. That is why the truth project, which John O’Brien will lead, is so important. Mr O’Brien was secretary to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales. He also led the development of the truth project, which ran alongside it. We will learn from his extensive experience to the benefit of survivors in Scotland.
Inquiries are often held after an event. However, the cabinet secretary said in her statement that this inquiry will focus on the potential prevalence of group-based abuse now and in the more recent past. How will the inquiry manage reports of abuse that is happening now? Our lack of understanding of the extent of the problem feeds into whether the abuse is historical or whether it is happening now in Scotland.
Claire Baker raises a hugely important point. To my mind, we will have to identify and respond to those issues through the terms of reference that we will develop with Professor Alexis Jay. We have heard media reports about a variety of issues in recent times. I am loth to raise any individual cases in the chamber—I would not do that as cabinet secretary. However, it is important that we have an understanding of the evidence base.
As I said in my statement, as the Education, Children and Young People Committee heard this morning, and as continues to be the case, the evidence base on this issue is disjointed in some areas, and the ways in which organisations record some of this type of behaviour and criminality is not consistent across the board. The work of the inspectorates is fundamental in that regard, but, in response to Claire Baker’s point, the terms of reference are also key. As I set out in my statement, the Scottish child abuse inquiry also has a locus with regard to historical cases, so we need to develop terms of reference that respect the Scottish child abuse inquiry and do not in any way overlap with its responsibilities. We will continue to work with Alexis Jay on that. I hope that that gives assurance on the points that Claire Baker has rightly raised.
The national review that is being carried out by the inspectorates is vital—particularly its third phase, which is on improvement. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that that work will continue alongside the inquiry and that, if changes in practices or processes are identified as necessary, they will be made?
I very much agree with Jackie Dunbar. The inspectorate-led review is critical. In the phase 1 assessment, the inspectorates are scrutinising the data and the evidence from all local authorities on the threat and risk of group-based abuse and exploitation. Phase 2, which is about assurance, will use those findings to carry out targeted scrutiny to identify strengths and weaknesses in local prevention, identification and response arrangements. Phase 3 will identify improvement needs, including those requiring national action. Additionally, a national report and improvement programme will be provided to the Government to support better outcomes for children and young people.
The cabinet secretary may be aware of the conviction of an offender last week for threatening and abusive behaviour against one of our parliamentary colleagues—actions that were directly related to far-right campaigning on this issue. Some members of the Parliament have used social media to stir up hostility against others on the issue. That action has consequences. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we all have a responsibility to stand up to extremist rhetoric and to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, instead of fanning the flames of conspiracy and division?
I thank Mr Harvie for the general sentiment of his question in relation to us all having a responsibility to stand up to extremist rhetoric. Yes—I very much agree with that. I believe that the way in which we conduct ourselves in the chamber sends a strong message to children and young people, and to the public, who we are all elected to represent in this place. I very much agree with the sentiment behind Mr Harvie’s question.
I welcome the establishment of the inquiry, and I wish Professor Alexis Jay well. As the cabinet secretary acknowledged, all too often when young people have spoken up about their experience of abuse, they have been failed by institutions that are responsible for their care.
The bairns’ hoose model, which is being rolled out across Scotland, is designed to support children when they disclose hurt or harm. Alongside the inquiry work, and dealing with the present concerns, can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Government will invest more in that model to protect children, prevent sexual abuse and ensure that specialist support is available to every child who needs it?
On Monday, I was in London at an interministerial group meeting, where I learned a bit more about the United Kingdom Government’s approach. Mr McArthur will be pleased to hear that our UK Government colleagues are coming to Scotland to learn more about the bairns’ hoose model and all the work that we have undertaken in that space.
On the bairns’ hoose model, there are now seven projects across the country that are funded by the Scottish Government, and there is funding in the budget that we will be considering later—I am sure that Mr McArthur and his colleagues will be voting for and supporting that. Under the bairns’ hoose model, education works with health and justice on a cross-portfolio basis to provide support to survivors of child sexual abuse. It is hugely important that we listen to the voices of young people.
One point that I have not yet mentioned relates to the truth project and how we will take account of the voices of young people. John O’Brien will be providing further advice on that.
It is welcome that Professor Alexis Jay, with her considerable experience and expertise from leading the inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, will chair the inquiry that was announced today. The inquiry that was held was thorough, and I note that it took seven years. Can the cabinet secretary provide clarity on timescales for the forthcoming inquiry? I can see that survivors, as well as the public, would prefer to have findings in a considerably shorter timeframe.
I very much agree with the sentiment behind Ms Harper’s question. The timescales for an independent statutory inquiry rightly require dialogue with the independent chair, which has to take into account the draft terms of reference and the Inquiries Act 2005. From my discussions thus far, I know that Professor Jay wants to ensure that the inquiry is timely and carried out at pace, while having the flexibility to investigate any areas that may come up through the inquiry process. The scope of the inquiry is important in helping to set parameters; it should not be wider than necessary or open ended, as that can have consequences both for the time taken and for the costs of conducting the inquiry more broadly.
The Scottish Conservatives have been calling for an inquiry for months, but there has been no urgency from the Government—none whatsoever. It was confirmed in November 2025 that we did not know the true scale and nature of grooming gangs. I even asked a question on it, and it has taken the Government four months to come to the chamber today to announce an inquiry. What concerns me more is that the cabinet secretary seems unable to tell Parliament what further information has come to light for the Government to change its mind.
The inquiry needs to be fearless and fully transparent and, most important, it needs to have victims at its heart. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee considered a petition that called for a national whistleblowing officer to be established. Will the Scottish Government now consider that, to give whistleblowers the confidence to come forward and stand up for victims, so that victims get the justice that they deserve?
I hope that Meghan Gallacher welcomes the announcement today. I agree with her sentiment that any inquiry needs to be fearless and transparent and to have victims at its heart—that is exactly the approach that I have taken throughout the process.
The member mentioned the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which was considering a petition on the matter this morning. I confirm that I have written directly to that committee, and I hope that the move from the Government in this area will be welcomed by the committee and the petitioner.
The specialist investigatory and intelligence role of Police Scotland is crucial to bringing perpetrators to account. Can the cabinet secretary provide an assurance that the officers who are conducting the review have the necessary experience, training and resources to undertake this highly complex and specialist piece of work?
As Audrey Nicoll knows, Police Scotland has a well-established specialist capability in that area, including officers and staff who are specifically trained in child protection, sexual abuse investigations and trauma-informed engagement.
The Government recognises the scale and the sensitivity of the work, which is why, in the budget, we have provided £2.7 million of additional funding to Police Scotland to ensure that dedicated resources are available for it to undertake the specialist review. That funding is specifically intended to support the capacity and the expertise required for work that is so complex and important.
Police Scotland has strong foundations for taking a national approach to this most serious of issues, including through the national child abuse investigation unit.
Tomorrow afternoon, we will debate the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report on the cost of and time taken by public inquiries. We have had public inquiries that have cost £50 million and £100 million; one took nine years. It is not good enough for the cabinet secretary to say that this inquiry will be done “at pace”. Surely there has to be a timeline and a cost—because the money that goes into the inquiry is taken away from the police, social workers and the national health service.
I recognise the challenge in the points that Mr Mason raises. He will recognise, too, the limitations that are put on the Government by the Inquiries Act 2005 in relation to costs and stipulating timescales. However, to give assurance, I have discussed those matters with Alexis Jay, who is keen to move at pace. Of course, those things will be discussed and agreed to accordingly in the terms of reference.
That concludes the statement. I apologise to the member I was unable to call—I have to protect the time for the afternoon’s business that was agreed to by the Parliament.