Angela Constance
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Patients deserve better. There have been active campaigns by members across the chamber to represent the views of constituents in Lanarkshire, including by my colleagues Neil Gray and Fulton MacGregor. I fully appreciate the strength of feeling on the need for a new Monklands hospital.”
“Proceeding in that cost envelope would significantly limit our ability to invest in services and infrastructure across the wider NHS. I have carefully weighed the opportunity cost against our objective on improving public services. The current proposal also raises important questions about value for money.”
“For the wider system, it will reduce pressure on acute hospitals, allowing focus on those who need specialist care most. I can announce today that, as part of the programme, specifically for Lanarkshire, we will begin with a new general practitioner walk-in facility in Lanark—transforming an old shop front and a retail park in the town ce…”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to provide an update to members on NHS capital projects, specifically on the current position and next steps for the Monklands replacement project. I begin by being absolutely clear: the Government will deliver a new Monklands hospital. That commitment has not changed and it will not change.”
“During the election campaign, the Scottish National Party promised to increase use of the new refugee doctors project, which is meant to help medically trained refugees from Gaza and other places to get registered for work in the national health service.”
“Scotland welcomes refugee doctors and is committed to supporting them in overcoming barriers that prevent them from rebuilding their medical careers.”
The complete record
Every one of 747 lines we hold for Angela Constance, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 15.
“Other parts of the legislation bolster that process: victims can also get help to access information via Victim Support Scotland, ASSIST, Children First and Rape Crisis Scotland. Restricted Regimes (Prisoner Welfare) 5.”
“The cabinet secretary gave the figure of 100 per cent figure in her answer, but the sum total of that figure is people who were registered with the victim notification scheme. Hardly any victims have registered with the victim notification scheme, and Victim Support Scotland has raised concerns about delays in reforming that. Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that the majority of victims, not only those who are on the VNS, will be notified in advance? Angela Constance: In relation to any temporary process that involves the earlier release of prisoners, a process is in operation to enable victims who have not registered with the VNS to inquire whether they could be provided with the release date of an offender in relation to their case.”
“In response to the implementation of the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025 and the Early Release of Prisoners (Scotland) Regulations 2025 legislation, the Scottish Prison Service’s victim notification scheme has notified 35 registered victims of a change of release date of a person in custody. That figure represents 100 per cent of registered victims where the offender’s release date changed as a direct result of the implementation of the above legislation. Sue Webber: We believe that victims should know if their assailants will not be completing their full sentence and will be at large in communities. We have been told that only 2 per cent of victims were notified of their offender’s early release under the last emergency release scheme. That is, frankly, appalling.”
“The arguments are very similar to those relating to the value of having good community policing. The importance of community policing is recognised in the Scottish Government’s strategic policing priorities. Police Scotland’s three-year business plan includes a number of measures that are aimed at enhancing community policing. As I said, the specific issue about officers attached to schools is a matter for local authorities. However, as well as increasing the police budget in this financial year, we have increased the resources available to local authorities across the country by more than £1 billion.”
“Evidence shows that police being connected to schools leads to long-term benefits, including a reduction in antisocial behaviour and action to address the increasing levels of violence in our schools. It is concerning that there has been a reduction of more than 1,000 police officers since the pandemic, and it is also concerning that local authorities across the country might be looking to take the decision not to fund school link officers. Does the Scottish Government want there to be a national commitment to all schools having access to school link officers? What is the Scottish Government’s position on that? Are such decisions just being left to local authorities? Angela Constance: I have seen for myself, in my constituency in years gone by, the impact that police officers who are attached to schools can make.”
“The safety of our children, young people and staff in schools is paramount. The use of funding for campus-based officers is a matter for local authorities. Through the relationships and behaviour in schools national action plan, the Scottish Government works with local authorities and partners to support positive relationships and behaviour and to promote safe and inclusive learning environments for all children and young people. Action is also being taken through the violence prevention framework for Scotland, which has been backed by £6 million since 2023. That supports the delivery of a range of targeted prevention and early intervention activities through work in schools, in hospitals and across communities. Miles Briggs: The role of campus cops is incredibly important.”
“In parallel, we are progressing reforms to strengthen oversight, scrutiny and learning across the prison estate, including work to establish a national oversight mechanism, so that improvements to accountability and safety do not need to wait for legislative change. Campus Police Officers 3.”
“Colin Beattie: Transparency and accountability are essential components of our justice system, so what assessment has been made of how the removal of corporate Crown immunity from the Scottish Prison Service will ensure that those values are upheld and that lessons can be learned? Angela Constance: Transparency, accountability and learning are essential, particularly following a death in custody. Although the Scottish Government cannot remove Crown immunity, we recognise the arguments that reform could strengthen accountability and support learning and prevention. Any reform would require UK Government action. In that context, Scottish ministers have agreed in principle to the UK Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which aims to strengthen accountability across public bodies.”
“As Crown immunity is an entirely reserved matter, any legislative change requires action by the UK Government, which is why I have raised the issue with the UK Government several times in recent years. Most recently, I raised the matter directly with the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice when we met in the summer, and I wrote to Stephen Timms, the UK minister who has responsibility for this area, in November 2025 to request further engagement. Following that, we are now making arrangements to discuss the matter in more detail, and I hope that such discussions take place in the near future.”
“I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak button.”
“I will finish by again saying that I fully accept the report of the independent advisers. I have always stated that I did not intend to mislead Parliament in any way in what was a long stage 3 debate on an important bill, in which we dealt with more than 170 amendments. I am pleased that the advisers have made it clear that my quoting of Professor Jay’s views was “without any deliberation or intention to mislead.” I hope that that addresses the matter in full and that we are all able to focus on how to effectively address and prevent the horrific and insidious criminality that is involved in the exploitation of children, and support victims. The Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement.”
“Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and to Parliament for not seeking to do so sooner. The independent advisers also considered my phone call to Professor Jay on 1 December last year, in which I apologised to her. Although I took a note of that discussion, the independent advisers acknowledged that that was “an error of judgement in the moment and not deliberate and in that sense inadvertent.” They concluded that, in line with paragraph 8.13 of the ministerial code, the call “should have been attended by an official”. I accept that conclusion unreservedly. Having made the statement to clarify matters, and making it clear that I accept the conclusions of the independent advisers on the ministerial code, I hope that we can now turn our focus to the work that we must do together.”
“I clarify that Professor Jay shared those views in January 2025 in a radio interview in the context of her work on the independent inquiry in England and Wales and that they were not related to the debate on the victims bill or the position in Scotland. The matter has been considered at length by the Parliament, including most recently in an evidence session of the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 17 December, at which Professor Jay and I both appeared. Although those opportunities have resulted in Parliament being widely informed of the full context of Professor Jay’s remarks, to remove any suggestion of those being misrepresented and Parliament misled, I accept the conclusion of the independent advisers that I should have sought to make a statement.”
“The independent advisers concluded that the phrase that I used when I said that Professor Jay “shares my views” had the potential to mislead Parliament and that the record of Parliament “should have been corrected in the same terms used in the National Strategic Group minutes as soon as possible after Professor Jay communicated her views on 26 September.” I therefore make clear that, during the debate on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in the Parliament on 16 September, I quoted the views of Professor Alexis Jay on calls for further inquiries into child sexual abuse.”
“Secondly, the quotations had been put on the record by Professor Jay during a Radio 4 broadcast in January 2025. In subsequent correspondence with officials that is in the public domain, Professor Jay agreed with the accuracy of the words that were used. However, the independent advisers reached the view that the context, content and detail of the debate were significant and that listeners might understand different things from the words used.”
“She also said that “the Scottish Government should urgently take steps to establish reliable data” and that she had already begun discussions with officials about how that might be achieved. She also asked for her position to be clarified. Officials contacted Professor Jay on 3 October proposing to take that clarification forward at the meeting of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group that was scheduled for 8 October. Professor Jay agreed to that route for clarification. The clarification was made at the meeting and the minutes were published on 18 November. The independent advisers noted that my statement on 16 September “was factually accurate in two respects”. First, the quotations that I used were made by Professor Jay.”
“She shares my view and has put on the record and stated to the media that she does not support further inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation, given the significant time and resource already spent in the review that she led, the Casey audit and other reviews. She says that it is now time that ‘people should just get on with it’. I contend that that is what the Scottish Government is doing right here, right now—we are getting on with the work that we need to do to protect children.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 31.] Professor Jay wrote to me on 26 September noting that I “correctly quoted” her but that her comments were in the context of a public inquiry in England and Wales, not Liam Kerr’s amendment.”
“During stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, Liam Kerr lodged amendments that sought to add research on child sexual abuse and exploitation to the remit of the victims and witnesses commissioner for Scotland and to require the commissioner to provide a report to the Parliament within three years. During the debate on those amendments, I intervened in relation to the discussion on data. As is now well known, I made the following remarks: “It is important that we get the right type of data, and that work is of course under way. Is Mr Kerr aware of the work led by Professor Alexis Jay, who was the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales and who currently sits on our national strategic group?”
“The advisers also said: “That is at the lower end of the spectrum provided for in the Code and therefore does not call for anything beyond a reprove which should be formal and in writing accompanied by a statement to Parliament by Ms Constance to clarify the words used and thereby add to the Official Record.” I fully accept the independent advisers’ report and sanctions. I received the reproval from the First Minister, which I of course accept, and I apologise to him. In addition, I am providing this statement as quickly as possible—I thank the Parliamentary Bureau for agreeing to that—to inform the Parliament and to carry out the advisers’ recommendation that I clarify the words that I used and ensure that that clarification is therefore in the Official Report.”
“Thank you for the opportunity to make this statement today. On 16 September last year, during stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, I made remarks that referenced the position of Professor Alexis Jay. What I said during that debate has been the subject of significant scrutiny, and the First Minister’s independent advisers on the ministerial code made it known on 22 December that they would independently investigate this matter. They have now delivered their conclusions to the First Minister. Their report has been published, but I will outline briefly the conclusions, which are that I made two breaches of the ministerial code, which were unintentional and “inadvertence without any deliberation or intention to mislead”.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees that all relevant provisions of the Sentencing Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 2 September 2025, and subsequently amended, affecting changes which align the treatment of national security offenders with terrorist offenders under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, so far as these matters alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament. 14:04”
“In fact, non- consent to the amendments might mean that the regime for the management of national security offenders in Scotland could be considered to be less stringent when compared with that in the rest of the UK. That would leave Scotland at risk of being considered a more attractive location for state threat actors and other offenders in the national security category. Thus, the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is essential to ensure consistency between Scotland and the rest of the UK with regard to the sentencing of national security offences and to also ensure that Scotland does not become less stringent in the treatment of such offences. In light of those points, I urge the Parliament to support the legislative consent motion.”
“The changes are expected to have little to no operational impact on the Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland or justice social work services in Scotland due to there commonly being a low number of prisoners with that sentence type held in Scottish prisons. The SPS has reported that there are currently no such prisoners in the Scottish prison population. However, although the impact might be minimal, I strongly advise the Parliament to consent to the changes. It is sensible to ensure alignment with England and Wales with regard to the sentencing of offenders who are convicted of a national security offence. National security offences are considered on a UK-wide basis. Thus, consistency in the treatment of such offenders is important with regard to sentencing and release.”
“That means that all such prisoners will be considered for parole after serving two thirds of their sentence, rather than short-term prisoners being subject to automatic release at 40 per cent of their sentence—as they normally would be—or long-term prisoners being considered for parole for the first time at half of their sentence. As a result of that change, several consequential and technical amendments are required to ensure that those provisions could also operate as intended in Scotland. The legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is required in relation to those amendments, because we consider that the changes that are being proposed would alter the executive competence of the Scottish ministers in relation to their functions that concern the release of that type of prisoner.”
“That includes changes to the sentencing of lower-level offences, release provisions for some prisoners, community order requirements and the restrictions that are available for post-prison supervision. The areas of law that are covered by the Sentencing Bill are largely reserved. Otherwise, its provisions extend only to England and Wales. However, on 14 October 2025, during the bill’s progress through the UK Parliament, the UK Government tabled amendments that seek to change the sentencing and release arrangements that currently apply to individuals who are sentenced for a national security offence to match those that apply to individuals who are sentenced for a terrorism offence.”
“After on-going engagement with the UK Government on the relevant provisions and further engagement with the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board for Scotland, the Scottish Government recommends that the Parliament agree to the motion for legislative consent in relation to the UK Government's amendments. The UK Government introduced the Sentencing Bill on 2 September 2025 to implement the recommendations set out in the report of the independent sentencing review led by the Rt Hon David Gauke, which was published in October 2024. The bill intends to make changes to the sentencing framework and the management of offenders in the criminal justice system in England and Wales.”
“I extend my thanks to the Parliament’s authorities for their co- operation in expediting the work on this motion, which will enable the Parliament’s position to be communicated to the United Kingdom Government before the conclusion of the bill’s progress at the House of Lords in early January. I also thank members of the Criminal Justice Committee for their input yesterday, and I look forward to the discussion this afternoon. I seek the Parliament’s approval for this motion to provide legislative consent to the UK Government’s amendments to its Sentencing Bill.”
“General Question Time 11:41 Regeneration Projects (Support for Community Organisations) 1.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I made a point of order yesterday to inform you and members that I had written to the editor of the official report to seek to update the parliamentary record to clarify the context of remarks that I made at stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in September, when I used a media quote of Professor Alexis Jay. That was not able to be done and the request was forwarded to the members’ corrections procedure. A short time ago, I was told that that request was not accepted. However, I am able to provide the information that I would have provided to the official report to you as Presiding Officer. I will do that today, copy it to business managers and place a copy of that correspondence in the Scottish Parliament information centre. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Constance.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. For information and for the benefit of the chamber, I note that I have received confirmation from the official report that it has received my request and that it is “not able to make” my “proposed change under the Official Report’s remit” but that it is forwarding my “request for a correction to the Business Team for consideration under the members’ corrections procedure. The Business Team will inform” me “of the decision about” the “correction request.” The Presiding Officer: Thank you. We will continue with our business. Business Motion 17:37”
“Our focus, as always, is to keep people safe, protect essential services, bring offenders to justice and ensure that Scotland remains digitally secure and resilient. I am very grateful to the Criminal Justice Committee for its work. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I take this opportunity to remind all those members who are seeking to speak in the debate to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons. 15:46”
“We must continue to build and enhance the capabilities of SC3 and the CyberScotland partnership and accelerate targeted prevention campaigns for specific sectors and communities. Fifthly and finally, to embed accountability for public bodies and critical suppliers, we need to move to a place of mandating minimum-security baselines and transparent risk reporting. Cybercrime is now a mainstream risk to our economy, our justice system and our people. Scotland has strong foundations in place: specialist policing capability, evidence of a maturing public sector, SC3, our national incident response and co-ordination centre, and an active partnership that reaches from Government into business and civil society. Our task is to lock in all those gains.”
“Alongside that, we are driving the adoption of multi-factor authentication and encouraging regular back-ups, incident response planning and the use of incident response exercises. There are five priorities in our fight against cybercrime, as part of our need for a secure and efficient justice system. The first involves sustaining and targeting investment in policing capacity, completing the build-out of Police Scotland’s cyber and fraud unit and refreshing front-line digital tooling. The second priority is to build on exemplar collaboration programmes, such as the digital evidence-sharing capability programme, to modernise our justice systems. The third is to enable legislation evolution, so that our laws are fit for today and resilient for the future. The fourth is to scale up prevention and skills.”
“In partnership with the National Cyber Security Centre and Police Scotland, SC3 is helping us to stay ahead of the threat and respond effectively to minimise the impact of incidents when they occur. I recently launched the SC3 cyber observatory, which will gather and analyse cyberthreat data and maturity insights from the public sector, allowing us to better target support and intervention. We are also investing £300,000 this year to equip the public sector workforce with the skills needed to safeguard our essential services. In line with the National Cyber Security Centre, we are positioning the cyber essentials standard as the baseline security standard for all organisations in Scotland.”
“We will work with UK partners, regulators and industry to ensure smooth implementation. The Scottish Government’s refreshed “Strategic Framework for a Cyber Resilient Scotland 2025– 2030” sets the vision for a digitally secure and resilient nation. It is a renewed commitment to protecting our people, organisations and future in an increasingly digital world. None of that can be achieved by Government alone. Prevention at scale is essential, and Scotland has established a national ecosystem to strengthen its ability to be more responsive and future focused. The CyberScotland partnership helps to drive practical resilience and awareness across public, private and third sectors. The Scottish cyber co- ordination centre—SC3—provides intelligence and early warning and manages incident response co- ordination for the public sector.”
“The Computer Misuse Act 1990 remains the backbone of legislation on cyber-dependent crime, but it predates contemporary security research. The proposal by the UK Government of a statutory defence for legitimate security research is welcome, and we will continue to engage with the UK Government on that matter. Alongside that, the UK Government has introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, as mentioned by Ms Nicoll. The bill will widen the scope of existing regulations to include managed service providers and data centres, it will harden essential services, and it will strengthen reporting. The bill will matter for Scotland. Some of our critical services and suppliers sit within its scope, for example health and drinking water.”
“Innovation is also happening at the front line of policing through the deployment of digital forensic vans and digital evidence detection dogs and the exploration of AI-enabled efficiencies as part of the policing in a digital world programme. Those changes matter, but we must be realistic about the constraints and challenges. Over 90 per cent of crimes now involve some form of digital evidence, and that places sustained pressure on our investigative capacity. The digital evidence- sharing capability programme, which is funded by the Scottish Government, is tackling that challenge and is now live across all police divisions. Across the justice system, we must—guided by the Christie principles—deliver integrated and secure services, providing better outcomes and best value for the public. Legislation must evolve, too.”
“A ransomware attack could halt proceedings, delay justice and create massive backlogs. Justice systems are prime targets for organised crime and even state-sponsored actors seeking to disrupt governance or influence outcomes. Cybersecurity is not just an IT issue; it is the cornerstone of justice that safeguards the fairness, reliability and resilience of our digital legal systems. That means that prevention, early warning and rapid, well- coordinated incident response arrangements are just as important as detection and prosecution. Police Scotland has strengthened its specialist capability in cybercrime investigations and digital forensics. The newly established cyber and fraud unit is consolidating the prevention of cyberfraud and digital harm under one command.”
“Our courts, law enforcement agencies and prisons handle enormous amounts of sensitive information, including criminal records, evidence and personal details of victims and witnesses. One breach could expose that data, endanger lives and derail investigations. Cybersecurity is not just about protecting data; it is about protecting trust. If systems are hacked or evidence is tampered with, confidence in fair trials collapses and, with it, the rule of law. Today, most evidence—emails, closed-circuit television footage and forensic data—is stored digitally. That makes it vulnerable to alteration or deletion, which could lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals. Let us not forget operational continuity. Courts and law enforcement rely on digital platforms for case management, e-filing and virtual hearings.”
“The Scottish crime and justice survey estimates 524,000 incidents of fraud and computer misuse in 2023-24, which means that roughly one in 10 adults is affected. When organisations suffer a cyberincident, the knock-on effects on people can be severe. The Co-op cyberattack in April, for example, disrupted operations and supply chains, leaving some of our rural and island communities with empty shelves in local shops. When West Lothian Council’s schools IT systems were hit, many schools experienced operational challenges, although exams were not affected due to well-rehearsed contingency plans. Those incidents are stark reminders of the growing cyber threat and the importance of resilience across all parts of society. What does that mean for our justice system?”
“Today’s committee- led debate is an ideal opportunity to set out the current picture of cybercrime in Scotland and the actions that we are taking and need to take across policing, Government, business and civil society to prevent harm, protect victims and strengthen our national resilience. Cybercrime has changed the character of offending in Scotland. Five years ago, Police Scotland recorded 7,710 cybercrimes; today, the figure is 14,120—almost double pre-pandemic levels. Those are broad estimates from police records, but the direction is unmistakable. More crime—whether fraud, extortion or exploitation—is now committed online or enabled by digital means. The public’s experience mirrors that.”
“The on-going work is about what we can do to actively intervene in the lives of our children in the here and now, but we are deeply alive to the lessons of the past that we can and must learn from. 17:00”
“Angela Constance: We have taken advice from Alexis Jay and from the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. We are looking at the work that Police Scotland is doing. The view that is coming back is that right now we need to do work to get a more comprehensive picture in order to consider the matter further. I emphasise to Mr Kerr that our position has always been that we are giving the matter serious and detailed consideration. I also note the importance of the work that the various inspectorates will now do with regard to that review. That work is crucial, because it will help to inform our view about the need for any further type of inquiry. Crucially, it will also inform our view about what needs to be done in our services on the ground and in our communities today and tomorrow to protect our children.”
“Russell Findlay: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angela Constance: Perhaps in a moment. I have consistently agreed with the point that members have made—it was directly raised by Mr Kerr and mentioned by Mr McArthur and Mr Whitfield—about the importance of data. Child protection has grown in breadth and complexity, so we need new and improved data to understand the scale and nature of the evolving threat. That threat to our children exists now. We have to recognise—we do recognise—that harm is hidden and that sometimes those risks are not immediately in front of us. Liam Kerr: What is the cabinet secretary’s objection to a full grooming gangs inquiry, then? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you back your time, cabinet secretary.”
“In a meeting with ministers last week, Police Scotland highlighted that we have strong foundations to tackle those harms, including the ability of the police to take a national approach through the national child sexual abuse investigation unit. It is essential that we await the outputs from that work and from Police Scotland’s further activity to develop an overview of the demographics of suspects and offenders in those crimes, to identify any key patterns or trends before any decision can be made on a national inquiry into the issue. The only point that I would make with regard to Mr Findlay’s amendment is that it pre-empts the work that Ms Gilruth and I will oversee—work that we want to take place at pace. Our position has always been that this is a matter to which we would give the most serious and careful consideration.”
“That highlighted Police Scotland’s response to the establishment of operation Beaconport in England and Wales, and the chief constable confirmed support for a UK- wide law enforcement approach. Police Scotland is taking a co-ordinated approach aligned to that being taken by police forces in England and Wales as they respond to the findings of Baroness Casey’s audit on group-based sexual abuse. Police Scotland is reviewing past investigations and, if evidence of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation is identified, cases will be referred to the National Crime Agency, which is providing another layer of additional independent oversight. If the conclusion is that further investigation is required, Police Scotland would lead that work.”
“We know—I know—that, throughout time and society, there have been individuals who seek to abuse children and will use every means available to do so. That is why we should all rightly be concerned about the current threats and challenges, including the 20 per cent year-on-year increase in reported online child sexual abuse. As justice secretary, I want to address the role of Police Scotland. Oversight of its work is through the Scottish Police Authority. That is set out in legislation, which I know that all members are aware of. Just last week, Police Scotland provided a comprehensive update to the SPA on its activities in relation to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation.”
“I am pleased to participate in today’s debate with my education colleagues who lead in child protection. However, of course, every Scottish Government minister has a duty and a role to protect our children, as we all do as parliamentarians. One member from the Opposition benches earlier made the important point that people need to work together, not just on the ground in our communities, but here in Parliament at a national level. In a moment, I will speak to the justice contribution to what is a sensitive and complex issue, which has, at its heart, the protection of children now and in the future, and the voices of survivors and victims in the past. The Scottish Government, like others today, recognises that the sexual abuse and exploitation of children are abhorrent crimes with devastating impacts on the victims.”
“If we cannot have, at an absolute minimum, a proper, full and independent review of the evidence of child sexual exploitation in Scotland, then Joani Reid MP has been proved right. 16:32”
“Martin Whitfield: I am very grateful for that intervention, but, again—and I say this with respect, because I have huge respect for the cabinet secretary—that is not an answer to the questions that were posed when the cabinet secretary was not in the chamber. I go back to my opening remarks, to the previous contribution, to the opening of the debate and to the opening from the Opposition. We are talking about women and girls who have suffered the most horrendous abuse. We owe them a level of honesty—and, frankly, a level of kindness—that they have not seen. I am conscious of the time, so I will finish my remarks. Again, I will quote my colleague Joani Reid, who said in an interview this week that Scotland has “a system that is not looking” and that “is not willing to look”.”