Chamber and committees

There is a strong economic and social case for a direct award to the yard, and I urge the First Minister to support such an award. A decision on the contract has been delayed for far too long and the workforce deserves clarity, so will the First Minister undertake to ensure that there is a speedy decision? If he cannot commit to a direct award of the contract today, will he commit to supporting Ferguson’s through other avenues, such as the second round of the small vessel replacement programme, and the delivery—in full—of the promised £14.2 million investment?

Scottish Labour lodged the motion because we believe that there must be accountability, transparency and justice, and we believe that the Scottish Government has been complacent on group-based sexual exploitation and abuse. The individuals, organisations and public bodies that fail to protect children and young people, especially girls, must be held to account for their failings, and we believe that victims and survivors must have confidence in that process.

We need full transparency from the Government, police, local authorities and other relevant bodies about how and why those failings have occurred. Children and young people who are subjected to such appalling abuse and exploitation deserve justice, including a commitment from the Parliament and the Scottish Government that all steps will be taken to ensure that such crimes never happen again.

I welcome the announcement from Police Scotland last week that there will be an audit to identify any child grooming gangs that have been reported to the force since 2013. We know that there are significant problems with child abuse and grooming in Scotland, and the audit will be key in helping to identify patterns, trends or concerns in relation to the demographics of suspects and offenders. It will be vital in helping to build a clearer picture of the scale of such abuse and exploitation across Scotland, and it will contribute to the on-going work of the National Crime Agency’s operation Beaconport, which forms a broader UK law enforcement approach to the issue.

If the audit identifies any potential cases for reinvestigation, that will hopefully lead to convictions for those who have engaged in such crimes. However, members have rightly questioned whether the audit will inspire the confidence and trust of victims. After all, Police Scotland has been accused of failing victims of group-based sexual exploitation and abuse. That is why Scottish Labour believes that independent oversight of the audit is vital if Police Scotland is to have the confidence and trust of victims. Independent oversight is not uncommon or inappropriate in relation to Police Scotland reviews and audits. The Scottish Police Authority already stands—

I am glad that the cabinet secretary seems to agree that we should have a police station in Greenock. As she said, one of the concerns that has been raised is about the loss of the custody suite.

More generally, does she agree that it is important that we continue to have custody suites in local areas? Will she use the opportunity of her meeting with Police Scotland to raise that issue and to impress on the organisation the importance of having local custody suites to reduce the time that is spent escorting people when they are taken into custody?

Yes, I will take an intervention from the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee.

I disagree with the member on that, but she is absolutely correct to say—as I said—that the Scottish Police Authority already stands as an independent governance body for policing in Scotland. However, having served on the Criminal Justice Committee for more than four years with the member, I still say that there is a need for far greater scrutiny of policing in Scotland. The committee is very aware of that.

The Scottish Government has previously commissioned independent reviews into police complaints, such as those that were undertaken by Lady Elish Angiolini. Police Scotland has also established independent oversight bodies such as the equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights independent review group. We believe that independent oversight of the audit is appropriate and that it would not undermine the operational independence of Police Scotland. We welcome the appointment of Professor Alexis Jay and reiterate our view that that role needs to be independent and have full, unfettered access to all information and records.

Pauline McNeill and Rona Mackay spoke about the audit that was undertaken by Baroness Casey in relation to group-based abuse and exploitation of children and young people in England and Wales. Although we recognise that many of Baroness Casey’s recommendations apply to other parts of the UK, we think it appropriate that the Scottish Government look at that work and provide an update to identify what can be implemented in relation to any recommendations in Scotland.

I understand that the First Minister previously stated that the Scottish Government is doing work on child protection policies and practices through the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. It would be helpful if he could clarify how survivors and other relevant stakeholders are being engaged in that work to ensure that there is no further exploitation of vulnerable children and young people in the future.

Members have rightly highlighted the recent powerful testimony of Taylor, the care-experienced survivor of human trafficking and child abuse, and have talked about many other children. All the bodies that we have spoken about in the debate have, in the past, failed to take the necessary safeguarding and reporting actions. Taylor herself has called on the First Minister to establish an inquiry, and Scottish Labour supports her in that call. We believe that an inquiry is vital if we are to establish why there has been a lack of intervention and investigation into cases such as Taylor’s.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has rightly stressed the need for ministerial leadership to establish the true scale of child abuse and exploitation, particularly in relation to group-based abuse. Although we think that the Scottish Government has been slow to call for an inquiry and show leadership on the issue of group-based sexual exploitation and abuse, we believe that the review can help to determine the extent of grooming in Scotland and the remit of any inquiry. That is why we believe that the review is required and we will support the Scottish Government in that work. However, we believe that it is likely that the review will lead to an inquiry.

I was going to come on to that in my next question, but if you want to deal with those issues as a whole, that is fine.

That would be fine. Your position, then, is that this is a codification of current law. There is no intention to change the law—this simply codifies what is already there.

It is helpful that that has been put on the record.

On the provisions on the law of retention, I note that proposed new section 21A(4) states that the effects of retention

“must not be clearly disproportionate to the effects of the breach”

of contract. Can you clarify exactly what “clearly disproportionate” means? Why is that going to be included in the bill?

Proposed new section 21D(b) gives courts the power

“to refuse the exercise of … retention where that … would be inequitable.”

Can you explain what is meant by that and what you envisage will be covered by that provision?

Good morning. What is your understanding of the main benefits of the new rules on remedies for breach of contract in part 2?