To ask the Scottish Government whether it will release all correspondence between the Scottish Government and Professor Alexis Jay, and what mechanism will be used to provide this information to MSPs and Parliament.

Yes, and I apologise for not already doing so direct to Parliament and to the member, as we had committed to doing. I issued Mr Ross with the information today and provided it to the Education, Children and Young People Committee. As Mr Ross has stated, the information is also on the Scottish Government’s website.

That is shocking, and I am glad that the First Minister is here, because he has serious questions to answer. Not only was it discourteous to members—I say “members” because people across the political spectrum have been asking for that correspondence for months—but, just yesterday, 24 hours ago, the minister said that she could not provide the information, that it would go through the freedom of information process and that it might be published by the end of the year. The Government had to be shamed into publishing it today. However, it could not even do that right. It could not even give the Parliament the courtesy of providing that information to the members who had asked for it. It released it early under FOI, then came to MSPs after 5 o’clock. I do not know the reason or the explanation for that. The Presiding Officer has asked the Government to reflect. I think that we need a statement from the Government about what it was doing.

Here is the issue: we know why the information had to be dragged out of the Scottish Government. John Swinney is staring right in front of him—he cannot look at me now—because I am about to say that he is going to lose his justice secretary.

Angela Constance is either going to have to resign or be sacked for misleading Parliament. In black and white, it is clear that the justice secretary did not tell the truth to the chamber. In black and white, it is clear that Professor Alexis Jay wanted the correction to be made.

I will read out the full quote from Professor Jay’s letter. It says:

“I have expressed no views on Mr Kerr’s Amendment, but I am of the opinion that the Scottish Government should urgently take steps to establish reliable data about the nature and extent of child sexual exploitation by organised networks, of which so-called ‘grooming gangs’ is only one component. In the context of the national strategic group, I have had discussions with officials about how this might be achieved.”

Her final line is:

“I would appreciate my position being clarified”.

That letter was sent to the Scottish Government—to the justice secretary—on 26 September. It was 8 October when the Government put the information into minutes. On 18 November, the minutes of the meeting were published. On 19 November, we got the Scottish Government’s first response, replying to my colleague Russell Findlay. It has been trying to hide this because it is trying to protect its Cabinet secretary. Is that not right?

There were a number of points in there. I start by saying that it was always my intention to provide the information, therefore I repeat my apology to the chamber and the Presiding Officer for the confusion that my letter to Mr Ross has caused. I have made all the correspondence between the Scottish Government and Professor Jay available today.

On the rest of Mr Ross’s question, I have been very clear about this before—I think that I made this same statement in my answer to the urgent question on 19 November. Mr Ross quoted Alexis Jay, and I want to put the facts on record once again.

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”.

Of course, it was minuted at the strategic group’s meeting in October that the quote was correct but that it was from January and not made in relation to the Amendment to 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 said that she also wanted to get on with the work needed to protect our children.

Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I think that that should be the focus of all of us in the Parliament going forward.

It should be the focus of the Parliament, but it is not, because we have been misled. Ministers have not been truthful. They have had to be dragged to the chamber to provide the information that they have been sitting on, not for weeks but for months.

This goes right to the very top, to John Swinney, and it is now a test of his leadership. I believe that, when he leaves the chamber tonight, he will be asked by the media whether he fully supports his justice secretary—and he cannot, because these documents make it very clear that she misled Parliament and that she did not take the immediate opportunity to correct the record.

I will go through that timeline again.

Very briefly, Mr Ross.

On 26 September, Alexis Jay sent an email to the Government. On 8 October, there was a meeting of the national strategic group. On 18 November, the minutes of that meeting were published. On 19 November, there was a request for the correspondence. On 25 November, Angela Constance denied misrepresenting Professor Alexis Jay. However, the emails that we have now seen show that the professor said that the “current position” was “unsatisfactory” because the Government would not publish her letter.

Where is the justice secretary and why is she not here in the chamber? Does the Minister believe—as I think most people will now—that the justice secretary’s position is untenable and that she should resign tonight or be sacked?

I have been very clear in relation to the points that Mr Ross has made. He started his response to my previous answer by saying that there has been no focus on the issue. I whole-heartedly disagree, and I am very happy to set out again the steps that we are going to take .

Last week, we announced that Professor Alexis Jay has been appointed the independent chair for the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. There will be an independent national review of the response to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation in Scotland. Once the independent national review is complete, the group, independently chaired by Professor Jay, will consider the findings and provide advice to ministers on next steps. That goes hand in hand with the Police Scotland review that is under way. We have also been clear that there will be a statement on the matter next week.

As I say, I have been very open and transparent in my answer to Mr Ross’s original question. I am happy to put on record the number of actions that this Government is taking to deal with this serious issue.

From what we have just heard, it is clear cut that Professor Alexis Jay’s advice in that letter was consistent with this Parliament supporting the Tory Amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. That is clear. However, rather than bring clarity last week on the review on grooming gangs, there is further confusion about who is leading the review. Last week, the Government seemed to give the impression that Professor Alexis Jay is leading it, but all press reports say that that is not the case. Can the Minister confirm which of the two groups is leading the review? Is it His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland or the strategic group? We need to know who is leading it.

I highlighted in last week’s debate that there was a list of 46 children—including Taylor, who is a victim—and Police Scotland said that there would be an investigation. Given the importance of the issue—I also said this last week—I would like to know whether that list is included in the review on grooming gangs before we get to the question whether we need a full-blown inquiry.

I remind members of the substantive question. Minister, please answer in that regard.

For clarity, last week we announced that Professor Alexis Jay has been appointed as the independent chair of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. We also announced that the Care Inspectorate and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland will lead an independent national review of responses to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation. In support of that work, Professor Jay met the chief inspector of constabulary and senior officials from the Care Inspectorate to offer her expertise and to progress that work at pace. Further detail on that will be set out in the Government’s statement next week.

Once that independent national review is complete, the group, which is chaired by Professor Jay, as I have just stated, will then consider the findings and provide further advice to ministers on next steps.

On Ms McNeill’s second point, I will have to come back to her with the details.

The SNP has been shamed into finally issuing this FOI response, albeit that it is redacted. It confirms that the Cabinet secretary misrepresented Professor Jay, but instead of coming clean, the Government embarked on a contemptuous cover-up, in breach of the ministerial code.

I empathise with the Minister for the position that her Government has put her in, but does she know whether the cabinet secretary has offered her resignation?

Minister, again, please answer in relation to the substantive question.

I have been very clear about the facts that have been laid out in relation to the quotes that have been put forward by Ms Constance and Alexis Jay. We have got to the bottom of it, we can draw a line under it and we can focus on the serious work ahead in relation to this most important issue.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children advises that the Scottish Government needs to show leadership. The Cabinet secretary has responded to questions on grooming gangs in the chamber, but when it comes to any question that involves correspondence between herself and Alexis Jay, she is either nowhere to be seen or not at her post to answer questions.

Given that the Minister was not able to answer questions that Pauline McNeill put to the Government, I ask again: who is leading on the review into grooming gangs? It is still not clear. Does the minister believe that the behaviours of the cabinet secretary jeopardise the non-inquiry review, even before it gets off the ground?

Again, Minister, please answer in relation to the substantive question.

I have given this response three times now. The Care Inspectorate and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland are leading an independent national review of responses to group-based child sexual abuse. That goes hand in hand with the work of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation group, which is led by Professor Alexis Jay.

Has the Official Report been corrected yet? If it has not, why not?

I must remind members that there is a substantive question in the Business Bulletin, and it is important that subsequent questions refer to that question. If the Minister wishes, she can respond in that regard.

I have taken the steps that I felt to be appropriate. I have come to the chamber today and, as I said, I have been very open and transparent around the confusion and the mix-up that have taken place. The information has now been provided in full and, as I said, I would now like to focus my attention on the serious matters at hand and the steps that we are taking to combat them.

That concludes the urgent question.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have two points to raise. First, will you accept a motion without notice for the First Minister to be able to update Parliament on whether he still has confidence in his justice secretary, and whether she has offered her resignation to him?

Secondly, Presiding Officer, can you confirm that if there has been no update to the Official Report , as requested in Sharon Dowey’s question, that is a breach of the code of conduct for MSPs, given that MSPs must update the Official Report with any corrections as soon as they are made aware of their error?

Thank you. I am sure that all members are aware of the mechanisms that exist to correct the Official Report.

With regard to Mr Ross’s other point, we will proceed with business as scheduled this afternoon. There will be other opportunities to discuss these matters.