Meeting of the Parliament 03 December 2025
This is a subject of considerable importance. When the Government voted down our amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have introduced a grooming gangs inquiry, the cabinet secretary told us that, if we believed that an inquiry into grooming gangs was necessary, we should “go and make the case for one”. We did exactly what she asked. We gathered what evidence we could, and what we found was deeply troubling.
In recent days, the Scottish Information Commissioner has ordered the Scottish Government to release vast amounts of material that it wrongly withheld in relation to the Salmond inquiry. Clearly, the Government has learned nothing from that and is continuing to make the same mistakes—only, now, they touch on the sensitive matter of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has repeatedly stated in the chamber that there is no need for an inquiry because the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group delivers the necessary coverage and oversight. Today’s announcement shows that, in its current format, the strategic group is not up to the job and never was. The Government announced that Alexis Jay will lead a review of complaints—essentially, what we asked for in our amendment that the Government voted down. We need a fresh start. We need a full public inquiry, independent of the Government and of that group. Frankly, we do not believe that anything related to that group will achieve justice for victims.
Our recent freedom of information request on the strategic group and its work on grooming gangs was met with a response that had sweeping redactions and vast sections that were blanked out. Those sections included material that would have shown whether the group ever meaningfully considered grooming gangs and whether it understood how to track them. Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, when the Government chooses to withhold important material from the public, it is legally required to provide a clear and compelling rationale for doing so, especially when there is a strong public interest in disclosure.
What was the Government’s strong justification for withholding key information on its strategic group? It was the impact on marine planning. That is right—marine planning was in official Scottish Government documentation about grooming gangs. That was clearly a lazy copy-and-paste job: a poor, sloppy reason that demonstrates that the Government has still not learned the lessons of the Salmond inquiry. It is continuing the same patterns of excessive secrecy, casual errors and careless redactions. Victims need transparency. What the Government has been producing is not good enough.
The concerns about the group go beyond its scope or the secrecy. They also touch on ministerial oversight, which is probably the most concerning aspect. We saw that the cabinet secretary had to be corrected on vital information that she presented to the Parliament about the views of members of the group. Clearly, ministerial engagement is poor, but we did not realise how bad it was until we submitted parliamentary questions about ministerial involvement with the group. Shockingly, we discovered that no relevant minister had attended any of the key meetings of the strategic group—not the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, not the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and not the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise.
Given the collapse of the inquiry in England and the recent harrowing testimony of victims, it is astonishing that ministers did not think it necessary to attend any meetings of the strategic group to ensure proper oversight. If ministers are not in the room, victims are not represented—it is as simple as that. On the matter of grooming gangs, the group lacks transparency, it lacks leadership and it has given us no reason to believe that it can tackle this sensitive issue head on. We certainly do not have any assurance about the review.
We were challenged to find evidence; we did. We asked for openness; we were blocked. We looked for seriousness; we found errors. We sought ministerial accountability; ministers did not turn up. We do not have confidence in the strategic group or the review to deliver full justice for victims. We need a national inquiry.
16:44