Justice secretary’s grooming gang comments probed for code breach.

Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Angela Constance, is now the subject of an official investigation to determine if she breached the ministerial code in relation to her controversial remarks concerning a leading expert on child sexual abuse, Professor Alexis Jay. This inquiry marks a significant escalation in a political row that has embroiled the Scottish government for weeks, casting a shadow over its commitment to transparency and accountability. The core of the accusation against Constance stems from her alleged misrepresentation of Professor Jay’s stance on the necessity of public inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation, leading to claims that the minister misled the Scottish Parliament, Holyrood.

The controversy ignited when the Scottish National Party (SNP) minister informed parliament that Professor Jay did not advocate for further inquiries into child sexual abuse. This statement was made during a crucial debate where Constance was opposing a Conservative amendment to a victims’ bill, an amendment that specifically called for an inquiry into the grave issue of grooming gangs in Scotland. The implication of Constance’s statement was that an expert of Professor Jay’s calibre and experience deemed such inquiries unnecessary, thereby bolstering the government’s position against the amendment.

However, the narrative quickly unravelled when Professor Jay herself intervened to clarify her position. Through emails subsequently released by the Scottish government, Professor Jay unequivocally stated that her comments, which Constance had cited, were made "in the context of the England and Wales Public Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse," an extensive investigation which she had chaired with significant distinction. Crucially, Professor Jay emphasised that her remarks "had nothing to do with [the Conservative] amendment, or the position in Scotland, as could be interpreted from your statement." She further advised Scottish ministers to focus on collecting "reliable data" on the issue in Scotland and to correct any misinterpretations of her views. This direct contradiction immediately put Constance under intense scrutiny.

The political fallout was swift and severe. Opposition parties, particularly the Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour, accused Constance of a clear breach of the ministerial code, which mandates ministers to be truthful and accurate in their statements to parliament and to correct the record promptly if any inaccuracies are identified. They argued that by failing to correct the parliamentary record in the chamber itself, Constance had deliberately allowed a misleading impression to persist. Calls for her resignation, and subsequently for First Minister John Swinney to dismiss her, intensified.

Last week, Constance narrowly survived a vote of no confidence at Holyrood. The motion, tabled by the Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour, sought to remove her from her post, alleging a serious breach of the ministerial code. However, the motion was ultimately defeated as the Scottish Greens, coalition partners to the SNP, sided with SNP MSPs, ensuring Constance retained her position. Despite this parliamentary reprieve, the political pressure did not abate, and the underlying questions about ministerial conduct remained unanswered.

In a significant development, the Scottish government’s independent advisers, who are tasked with providing guidance on the ministerial code, have now formally notified First Minister John Swinney of their intention to launch an independent investigation into Constance’s conduct. This move is particularly noteworthy as it marks the first time the advisers have initiated such an inquiry independently of the First Minister since new rules were introduced in December of the previous year. These updated rules were designed to "set the highest standard of propriety and integrity" by empowering the advisers to act without direct referral from the First Minister, previously the standard procedure. The Scottish government has issued a statement confirming the impending probe, expressing an expectation that the investigation will be concluded in a "timely manner."

The genesis of the controversy lies in Constance’s parliamentary opposition to the Conservative amendment calling for an inquiry into grooming gangs. This sensitive issue, often associated with historical failures to protect vulnerable children and highly emotive for the public, demands utmost clarity and accuracy from public officials. Professor Jay, having overseen the monumental Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in England and Wales, is arguably the foremost authority on the subject in the UK. Her advice carries immense weight, and any misrepresentation of her views is therefore considered a serious matter.

While a clarification regarding Professor Jay’s position was eventually issued in meeting notes last month, critics pointed out that this was insufficient as it was not delivered in the Holyrood Chamber and, consequently, not officially recorded in the parliamentary record. This omission fuelled accusations that the government was attempting to quietly bury the issue rather than openly acknowledge and rectify the perceived misstatement.

Constance has since publicly apologised to Professor Jay, doing so at Holyrood’s education committee. During this appearance, she informed the convener, Scottish Conservative MSP Douglas Ross, that she did not believe her actions constituted a breach of the ministerial code. She also revealed that an initial apology had been made in a "personal" telephone conversation with the academic, a call notably without the presence of any government officials. Despite the apology, Constance has continued to describe her original comments about Professor Jay as "accurate," an assertion that has bewildered many, given Professor Jay’s clear written clarification. This stance suggests Constance may be attempting to differentiate between technical accuracy in one context and the misleading impression created in another.

The opposition parties, undeterred by the failed no-confidence vote, subsequently wrote to the independent advisers, formally requesting an investigation. Their persistent pressure has clearly borne fruit, leading to this unprecedented independent inquiry.

The team of three independent advisers, appointed by the First Minister, serve as the guardians of the ministerial code, offering guidance and investigating potential breaches. The code itself is a cornerstone of good governance, designed to ensure ministers uphold the highest standards of conduct, integrity, and accountability. It requires ministers to be honest, open, and to take responsibility for their actions. The new rule allowing advisers to initiate investigations independently was a reform intended to bolster public confidence in the system, removing any perception that the First Minister could shield their colleagues from scrutiny. This investigation into Angela Constance is now the first real test of that strengthened system. Ultimately, while the advisers will make a finding on whether a breach occurred, the final decision on whether a minister remains in office rests with the First Minister.

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay has been vocal in his criticism, stating that First Minister Swinney had been "defending the indefensible." Findlay added, "His lack of judgment and refusal to face the facts is bewildering. Having lost all trust and credibility, it’s long been evident to everyone apart from John Swinney that Angela Constance’s position is untenable. She needs to go."

Similarly, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar pointed to the investigation as calling Swinney’s "lack of judgement" into question. He remarked, "The justice secretary clearly misrepresented Prof Alexis Jay on an issue as serious as grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation. There are now serious questions for John Swinney to answer too. The sad truth is that this is an SNP government which time and time again lies to the public and thinks it can get away with it." Both leaders highlight the broader implications for the government’s credibility and Swinney’s leadership.

As political commentator Glenn Campbell observed, this controversy has been unnecessarily protracted. His analysis suggests that if Angela Constance had clarified her use of Professor Alexis Jay’s quote at an early stage and offered a public apology for any misunderstanding, the matter would likely have concluded swiftly. While political opponents might have attempted to prolong the dispute, a vote of no confidence in such circumstances would have appeared "laughable." Campbell posits that it is the "defensiveness of the Scottish government," coupled with their initial reluctance to admit a mistake even when Professor Jay was privately pointing it out, that has largely escalated the situation.

Campbell further highlighted that referring the matter to his independent advisers for adjudication had always been an option for the First Minister. When questioned previously, Swinney had insisted he had personally reviewed the matter and concluded there had been no breach of the code of conduct for ministers. This position now places Swinney in a precarious situation. If the independent advisers ultimately decide that the rules have been broken, it would directly challenge the First Minister’s own judgment and could leave him with little choice but to relieve his Justice Secretary of her duties. The outcome of this investigation is not merely about Angela Constance’s future; it is a critical examination of the integrity of the Scottish government and the leadership of John Swinney himself. The principles of honesty, transparency, and accountability in public life hang in the balance, as the Scottish public watches to see if justice, in its broadest sense, will be served.